# 'Out' getting worse..



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Hi,
Recently I started working with a new decoy. My youngest (female mal) always had a very good 'out' (or 'los' as we call it), but now it's getting worse.
Could the reason be that she has less respect for the decoy in question?
Other possible reason(s)?
(ps : when I play with a ball, ask for an 'out', she IMMEDIATELY does this..)

Thanks, Jo.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"Could the reason be that she has less respect for the decoy in question?"

I know this sounds bad, but I don't have any other way of saying it; this must be a sport thing. I don't understand how the dog's respect for a decoy affects the out. I have two fairly standard answers I use when my handlers ask why a dog does a specific thing;

1. Because it can

2. Because you allow it.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Young (Nov 24, 2007)

I'm sure that you will get other responses but I'll thow my two cents in there. There could be all kinds of reasons for the out getting worse. Your idea of less respect for the decoy could be a factor. Sometimes when the dog feels he is getting the better of the decoy it becomes more difficult to get the dog to out. Another factor that can come into play is how long the dog is allowed to stay on the bite. Yet another factor can be how long did the dog have to pursue his prey (decoy) before she made the bite. 

The decoy can make it more difficult for you to out your dog but utimately the dog has to repond to your direction. You may have to increase the intensity level of your correction assuming that is how you train. I would also get the decoy to be "strong" when you are about to out the dog. Have him/her line the dog up to you and lock up good and strong. So you can step into the heel position to out your dog. You will be more effective in this position. 

Hope this makes sense to you and it may be more info than you were looking for.


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

@ David,
no, it's not a sport thing, not at all in fact..
I'm just trying to figure out why she has a perfect out with one decoy, with me playing, and a very bad out with another decoy..

@Howard, many thanks for your reply. Some very good points.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

If the out is solid, what the decoy does should not have an impact on the dog. I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say; "with me playing". Like sit and down, out has a required response.

DFrost


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

David, the out has always been solid (even when the dog is in very high fight drive f.e.).
What I mean by playing, well could be playing with a ball, bottle whatever : I say out, woops.. out! Even at a distance.
I'm going to see my former decoy, will make me wiser I hope.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

One idea is that the dog was comfortable with the other decoy because she knew him and worked with him before. Now there is a new decoy she doesnt know very well so there is more stress, so she is more reluctant to Out.

Just a thought.


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Yep, also thought about that Mike. But usually when I get the occasion to train with security people of whatever -> also new person/situations, I never experienced that problem... 
Maybe she's only building more and more character (I'll see what she does with the old decoy) & I'll simply have to work on the 'out' again ..

Thanks


----------



## Michele McAtee (Apr 10, 2006)

Wait, how old is she again? Is she getting ready for heat?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

new, unexperienced decoy? Sometimes they do just the thing what you have learned the dog to hold on.


----------



## Kris Finison (Nov 26, 2007)

Might it be this that the old decoy was freezing up/stopping the fight when you have the "out" command without knowing it?
Is it possible that this new decoy isn't doing that so your dog thinks she must continue to fight him? I've seen plenty of dogs (especially in FR) that are hesitant to or simply will not "out" when the decoy is not required to freeze up.

It's hard to assess without seeing the situation with the old and new decoy in person.

While it might seem very frustrating, it sounds like it will be a good learning and training situation for the both of you. Even though it should be a given, don't forget to have a couple other people watching and helping it notice and point out what is happening. 
Please keep us informed. Good luck!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Johan Dekinder said:


> @ David,
> no, it's not a sport thing, not at all in fact...


I don't understand.

Wouldn't it be only in sports where the decoy's work is seen as affecting the out? How could that be in, say, PSD training?


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

i think that what david is saying is that in his world out means out. every decoy, every time. decoy "style" is a much bigger thing in the sport world. if a decoy is too hard on the dogs in a trial, the competitors complain. so you have a very similar way of decoying across the board to prepare the dog for sport.

in PSD, anything goes as far as a decoy. out should still mean out. 

it would seem to me that more work should be done with the new decoy rather than going back to old faithful...


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> i think that what david is saying is that in his world out means out. every decoy, every time. decoy "style" is a much bigger thing in the sport world. if a decoy is too hard on the dogs in a trial, the competitors complain. so you have a very similar way of decoying across the board to prepare the dog for sport.
> 
> in PSD, anything goes as far as a decoy. out should still mean out.
> 
> ...


Gotcha.

So it is a sports thing.

QUOTE: "what david is saying is that in his world out means out. every decoy, every time. .... decoy "style" is a much bigger thing in the sport world. "

Good explanation; thanks.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Tim summed it correctly for me. Which brings me back to my original statement; the dog does that because;

1. He can

2. You allow it.

DFrost


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Tim, David, 
I TOTALLY agree withj both of you. An out is an out, and always was an out with every helper/decoy we worked with until now..
Therefore I'm also driving to my previous decoy as I really want to see what she does there. If I have a perfect out there .. , than what?
That's what bothering me. If she now does the same over there, okay, I'm going to work on it, but what if not?


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

@Kris :
The old decoy worked more "passive" with the dog most of the time, but on civil work f.e. he often got into a big fight with her & still the out was out, not even one second.. I've always trained for perfect obedience in protection work (that's why it bothers me that much  )
The new one does "fight" more with the dog.

@Michèle :
no, normally not ready for heat

@Selena : no, decoy is working with dogs for more than 15years. Trained police dogs & security dogs in Tjech.

Thanks everybody


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Johan, you say up until now the outs have been good. Training never stops. We all have set backs with our dogs , more often than not. David and Tim said everything right. You just have to keep training. I see it this way, If it isn't broke you can't fix it. Be glad that it has become broken, now train to fix it. When it's fixed this time, it will hopefully stay fixed.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I have seen this a lot, as I have a dog that is perfect on my regular decoy, and Hmmmmmm at times on new decoys.

I was visiting some really nice people at DCK9 and Buko did quite well. They are considering FR and I hope that they make the change.

Buko was sooooooo happy to work.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

My spin, respect for the new decoy should be like respect for a whore...there isn't any. I want my dog to OWN the decoy, to dominate it, and to play mind games with it. If you dog isn't outing on YOUR command, that's not an obedience issue, it's decoy dominance. Your dog plays with the ball and outs quickly for you, it wants to please you, right?

It isn't outing on the decoy because it wants to OWN that person, to control them. Like a kid with a death grip on a handful of crayons...mine, mine, mine! To clean the out command, most handlers pull from the rear of the leash, wrong. This allows the dog to set their teeth deeper into the bite. Work from the back of the decoy. Long line through the decoy's legs and command "out" from behind him. At the same time YOU are popping the dog on the prong collar...forcing the dog into the bite.

Make sure the decoy has a stick to protect from rebites. Or do two folks with you being in front and a helper popping from the back. It is important to then resend the dog in for another B & H, bite, "out", and bite w/a slip of the sleeve running the dog in a praise circle.


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks for that Howard, I can find myself in what your saying...
I once trained with a young decoy too, and I must say he wasn't very sure, well .. had the same problem that day. I guess she smells fear and really wants that person indeed. She is always dead serious in her work, it's not a sport for her.
Update : 
we used an electric collar, and the outs were perfect ; second training we only put the collar on & it was still okay. Today no collar and again the outs could be better sometimes, but I can live with it now.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Good Johan. I see the outs as an obedience command. I don't care how much the dog wants to dominated the decoy, I don't care if the dog is stressed, I don't care about any of those things. An out is an out, obedience command. Everything a dog does stems from obedience. Bad behavior is corrected and you did this with the e-collar. My daughter has a boxer and this dog would out but rebite over and over again. The e-collar was the ticket. The dog only felt it 3 times. The dog had to know that with bad behavior there was somethng that was going to happen. The dog knows the out and the dog was simply saying &$%^&^%$ you, I'm going to have my way with this decoy.

Good work and I'm glad you got it fixed. ( You may have to reinforce from time to time )


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Thanks Jerry.
Despite being in the dogsport for many years, I never used an e-collar, but it definitely helped. I had help from Mario Verslijpe who perfectly knows who to work with these things.
Something indeed had to be done, and yes ..I'll probably have to reinforce from time to time.
Regards.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

If the "out" is an obedience issue, then its very root was in a training issue. When does drive come in? I look at the "out" as a behavior issue. Dogs in very high drive can have problems doing any "reasonable" command when they are in a *high *mode. 

Change the mindset/behavior, change the problem. You can have a dog that is soooooo focused that it is blind to everything. How many high school wrestlers don't hear their coach because they are so focused on the guy they are wrestling? 

A dog is a living thing. How can you expect them to work like robots? Foundation training is the key to everything: K-9, life, business... OK I've preached enough.


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Howard,
all those things came to my mind, therefore my question on this forum.
How comes that an out is perfect with me playing with a ball/bottle/..., used to be perfect 95% of the time with my previous decoy, and now went bad...was it the decoy, was it the fact that she is getting more mature, was she in pretty high mode as you say (I train reality with sometimes pretty serious scenarios).
She has a very good obedience, but again, is a very serious dog.

Anyhow, problem solved for the time being.
Thanks everybody for your input, much appreciated.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> If the "out" is an obedience issue, then its very root was in a training issue. When does drive come in? I look at the "out" as a behavior issue.


Great discussion… but I will have to disagree. IMO the out is ALWAYS a training/obedience issue. I like to look at it this way… as you increase drive you must increase the control work to balance that drive. Once you reach that harmony, it’s time to increase the drive and then bring the control up to match the new drive level.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Johan Dekinder said:


> used to be perfect 95% of the time


Then the dog learns that 5% of the time it doesn't have to listen to you.... then 6% and 15% and so on. You MUST expect and be prepared for the dog to not do what you want or else don't bother giving the out command... cause you inadvertently reinforced the wrong behavior.


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Matthew,

95% perfect, which to me is not even 1 sec for an out. The 5% were less perfect outs but still within a period of let's say max.4 secs.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Johan Dekinder said:


> Matthew,
> 
> 95% perfect, which to me is not even 1 sec for an out. The 5% were less perfect outs but still within a period of let's say max.4 secs.


I don’t see a difference…. If you want a 1 second out EVERY TIME you can’t allow the 4 second out at all….4 will become 6…then 10 … then to hell with outing! Consistency is key. :grin:


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

Matthew, you're very severe you know :wink: ; but I understand your point.
In contests over here, you have max. 5 secs for the out (reality work).
I always work(ed) for a perfect out with all of my dogs (otherwise I wouldn't ask for help), so from time to time I can live with 3 secs but I shouldn't, agree with you.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Johan Dekinder said:


> Matthew, you're very severe you know :wink: ; but I understand your point.
> In contests over here, you have max. 5 secs for the out (reality work).
> I always work(ed) for a perfect out with all of my dogs (otherwise I wouldn't ask for help), so from time to time I can live with 3 secs but I shouldn't, agree with you.


Lol sorry! The out has always been “my albatross” with my work dog so I have to strive for “out perfection” with him or everything will go down the shitter!


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Matthew is right. If you allow the least bit of disobedience it well escalate. If you give them an inch they will take a mile. I understand your time limit however and that's fine if that is what allowed. If you train above that, no worries. I'm preaching to the chore here for my male is doing the sort of sameway. He will out but he must have that final little hard grip before he lets go. Extra crunch saying I'm turning you loose but know I'm still here and there's more where that came from. 

I still don't know how to use the smiley faces but if I did, one would be here. Maybe two.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

If you give a dog a reason to release his bite you won't have a problem in getting the out. If he thinks that something better will come along, he won't hang on. 

It shouldn't make any difference who he's biting. If you give a command it should be obeyed. But this doesn’t mean that the work is done "just because you said so." Many handlers come from this place because it's what they've been taught; but there are better way of getting the behaviors. There's no need to hurt the dog to get him to release a bite and often it's counterproductive.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> If you give a dog a reason to release his bite you won't have a problem in getting the out. If he thinks that something better will come along, he won't hang on.
> 
> It shouldn't make any difference who he's biting. If you give a command it should be obeyed. But this doesn’t mean that the work is done "just because you said so." Many handlers come from this place because it's what they've been taught; but there are better way of getting the behaviors. There's no need to hurt the dog to get him to release a bite and often it's counterproductive.


are you talking about and advocating the "reward" bite on the out?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> are you talking about and advocating the "reward" bite on the out?


No Tim. I don't care for that method of getting the out. I've seen cases where the dog develops the habit of getting a bite as a reward for the out. He releases the bite, turns and is looking for another bite. The first thing on his mind after the release is biting someone else. There are a couple of problems with this. One is that he may need to bite the first crook again. Another is that other officers or civilians in the area become potential targets. If control is not good, a good guy can get bitten. 

It has to be constantly maintained or it soon fades. If the dog learns that it only comes sometimes, he'll start, not releasing the first bite because he's not willing to gamble that the reward will come. 

I'm talking about not thinking of the bite as the end of the work, it's just something that happens, just like a sit or a down, It leads to a hunt, which is self-rewarding, if the dog has been selected properly. 

It also sets up a relationship of cooperation between the handler and removes the conflict.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> It has to be constantly maintained or it soon fades. If the dog learns that it only comes sometimes, he'll start, not releasing the first bite because he's not willing to gamble that the reward will come.
> 
> I'm talking about not thinking of the bite as the end of the work, it's just something that happens, just like a sit or a down, It leads to a hunt, which is self-rewarding, if the dog has been selected properly.
> 
> It also sets up a relationship of cooperation between the handler and removes the conflict.


I really agree with this. I believe when the bite, in and of itself is not the primary focus of the training activity, it will lead to a solid out. Much like a detector dog will continue searching for extended periods of time. The dog learns that, maybe not this time, but at some point, the bite will come.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Johan,
OMG...so many choices. You could use electric, kick the life out of the dog, put it in time out, tell it "You're not playing nice today," or the other option. Wait I'm still thinking.

I would have some folks who really know behaviors look at the scenario that the dog is facing and how the decoy is working the dog. Did the new decoy step on the dog's feet, hit it with the stick too hard, or catch it in a way as to hurt it. Yes, the out is 100% obedience in most cases but there can be other issues that can over ride that and we ALL know it. But you can also go back to the 95/5 rule. If what it is doing 95% of the time is good, can you live with the 5% that isn't a robotic "out" behavior. I still think if the dog is working for your "out," it is some type of stress or issue the decoy may be doing. 

My decoy for our training group is 6'-4". Rock has worked on two other decoys and his defensive drive on the bite suit is very high. When he has that person on the ground, he wants to dominate and kick their a$$. I can prong him off, but as we all know again, pronging can also increase drive. I also used a *ball tap* from the back of the line. He didn't "out" and I tapped the family jewels...nothing hard, don't want to kill of swimmers! He "outed" and went to guarding the decoy. 

Try a different decoy and see if it works. Your dog wants that decoy, send me a picture of the dog and decoy.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I'm talking about not thinking of the bite as the end of the work, it's just something that happens, just like a sit or a down, It leads to a hunt, which is self-rewarding, if the dog has been selected properly.
> 
> It also sets up a relationship of cooperation between the handler and removes the conflict.


i agree with what you said about the reward bite and the mixed signals it sends to the dog. i still am not sure what you're talking about in the above quote. are you saying that the dog doesn't get a bite every time he searches? what specifically do you mean?


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I would never do the ball tap, sorry. The dog may be a female nor do I like to flank them. Plus the dog knows who did that to him therefore, conflict with the handler. Some dogs may even want to come up the leash. I've been there but not for this issue. Electric can be done at a distance or close. The dog already knows what out means according to the first post. The dog is not outing because, who cares. He is not doing it because of lack of obedience, bottom line. He has got to work through this drive and be obedient. Giving a bite after he outs is good until he is very clear on the out when in that drive. That won't be done all the time. He needs to know that your praise will soon replace that.

The dog and I say again is telling you that the bite is more fun than him obeying the out command which he knows. Don't kick his A&& for not complying, that causes conflict with the handler. The e-collar I would use when nothing else works. I would simply start by picking his front feet off the ground, while he's on the bite, with the flat collar and calmly say "out". When he does, give him the rebite. Do this over and over until he understands that through drive he must comply. Have him sit in front of the decoy for a very short period of time and give him another bite. Gradually increase the amount of time that he sits in front of the decoy and still give him his bite. On the last bite have someone other than the suited decoy come up with a sleeve. Let him bite the sleeve and carry away while you give him tons of praise. For the really hard headed dogs after all this has been done go to th e-collar giving him just enough that he lets go.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> i agree with what you said about the reward bite and the mixed signals it sends to the dog. i still am not sure what you're talking about in the above quote. are you saying that the dog doesn't get a bite every time he searches? what specifically do you mean?


Tim, I can't speak for Lou, but I don't give the dog a bite every time he searches. Sometimes the subject surrenders. Sometimes the suspect is in a position where the dog guards and the handler cuffs and stuffs. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

I think it was David who said that what the decoy does should not have any effect on how well he outs. Real crooks are going to do all sorts of things that decoys don't do during training. Their goal is to get the dog to stop biting them so they can make good their escape. With that in mind you should expect that they're going to punch, kick, hit the dog with bare hands or whatever weapons they can grab or that they have on them; stab the dog if a knife is available, shoot the dog if a gun is available. 

No matter what the details are of the fight itself, the crook is going to try and hurt the dog. Yet he must be able to be outed anytime, even in the middle of the fight. You shouldn't have to wait for the bad guy to voluntarily surrender or for him to be subdued. 

Even if he doesn't comply with commands or stop fighting, there may be times when you need the dog to stop biting on your command.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm talking about not thinking of the bite as the end of the work, it's just something that happens, just like a sit or a down, It leads to a hunt, which is self-rewarding, if the dog has been selected properly.
> 
> It also sets up a relationship of cooperation between the handler and removes the conflict.





Tim Martens said:


> … i still am not sure what you're talking about in the above quote. are you saying that the dog doesn't get a bite every time he searches? what specifically do you mean?


Rarely in my training does a dog get a bite at the end of the search. I don't think of the bite as a reward. Most people have the bite and then the out as the end of the problem. I almost never do that. Most of the time there's a find but it doesn't involve a bite. 

But to be more specific to your question. I choose my dogs so that they have a high level of drive to hunt. Allowing them to do so is a reward. A "search command" is not so much a _command _as it is a release from OB so that the dog can fulfill his drive to hunt. I use that drive as a reward when the dog releases his bite. But it's not that simple. 

I use an entire system of working the dog that emphasizes cooperation between the handler and the dog. I eliminate all conflict and the work goes much smoother. The dog learns that OB is NOT done just because "the handler says so." But that it's part of an entire scheme of things that includes play, OB, searching, biting and everything else that the team does as a team 

Since we're cooperating, the out isn't a fight between the dog and the handler, instead the dog is happy to release the bite. It's just part of what's going on. It may lead to another search, a bite, some OB, play or any number other things. But the emphasis is on working together for a common goal, instead of us having different agendas. 

But this isn't just something that can be done when there's a problem to fix it. It's an entire system of working the dog and establishing the relationship between the dog and the handler.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

i don't buy a lot of the "conflict" that gets created with the handler. do you not correct your dog during obedience? do you not correct your dog when he gets distracted during tracking? how is correcting your dog on a bite anymore of a conflict? the dog is being disobedient. if he receives physical punishment from the handler for disobedience of any kind, how is it any more conflict during bitework?

in the spirit of cooperation and teamwork, why is an e-collar ever needed?


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm talking about a dog that will come up a leash. I wonder what started such dog coming up the leash to begin with? During bite work is not the place for harsh corrections. Obedience and tracking the drives are different than during bite work.

Training bite work needs to be done without that kind of harsh conflict. Sure you should correct a dog for all unwanted behavior But be fair with it. Hitting a dog in the nards and even flanking him is not the way. Sure he'll come of the bite but he'll come off if you kick him in the head.

Tim wrote
"in the spirit of cooperation and teamwork, why is an e-collar ever needed?"
For corrections at a distance more than anyother. To let the dog know he can still be corrected. Until the dog is reliable. Cooperation and teamwork is just that, the dog must work with you and not defy your commands.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> i don't buy a lot of the "conflict" that gets created with the handler. do you not correct your dog during obedience?


No. He gets corrected by his own behavior. At least that's what he thinks. 



Tim Martens said:


> do you not correct your dog when he gets distracted during tracking?


No. He gets another command (which as I said before is not really a command). 



Tim Martens said:


> how is correcting your dog on a bite anymore of a conflict?


It's not any more of a conflict. It's the same thing. 

If your dog knows where the correction comes from, it creates conflict no matter what you're doing. I understand the theory (and believe in it) that a dog has to be responsible for the consequences of his actions. But even though the dog knows what's he's supposed to do and understands that if he doesn't do it that he'll get a correction, it's still not pleasant to get it. When he does, it creates conflict. No animal likes to be jerked around by the neck even though he understand that it's a consequence of his own actions. 

There's also lots of other conflict present when you try to get him to release using conventional theory. It's _his _prey and suddenly you're trying to take it away from him! Ever seen a dog that spins away from the handler (goes to the other side of the decoy) as the handler approaches? That's evidence of conflict. Ever see a dog that bites harder or gets hectic as the handler approaches? More evidence of conflict. Ever seen a dog that gets growly as the handler approaches? That's more evidence of conflict. Ever seen a handler correct his dog only to have the dog release the bite, turn and bite the handler? That's *proof *of conflict. 



Tim Martens said:


> the dog is being disobedient.


I think that he's just following his instincts which tell him to hold onto his prey until it's dead. I don't have this problem. And I've fixed it hundreds of times with the dogs of other handlers. 



Tim Martens said:


> if he receives physical punishment from the handler for disobedience of any kind, how is it any more conflict during bitework?


It's not. It's the same thing. And it creates conflict, not only in the bite work, but everywhere in the relationship. I've seen many handlers that are afraid of their dogs. They're afraid to lie down on the ground next to their dog. If that's going on, then there's a serious problem. That's one reason that I don't use physical punishment with a leash any more. I think it creates conflict between the dog and the handler. 



Tim Martens said:


> in the spirit of cooperation and teamwork, why is an e-collar ever needed?


The Ecollar is the tool used to eliminate the conflict because, used as I use it, the dog thinks that the stim comes from his own behavior, not from the handler. I'm using very low levels of stim; but this isn't just a matter of turning down the stim; the dog has to know what the stim means. And it can't be, "You screwed up and I'm punishing you for it!" Instead it's "_I (the dog) _screwed up and this is the universe making me uncomfortable for it." 

If you're using high levels of stim, such that the dog yelps when he gets a stim, you're well into conflict, especially if it's used as punishment in place of a leash correction. You're just using the Ecollar as an invisible leash, and that's responsible for more conflict.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

lou, by no means do i think you are wrong and i am right here. i'm quite sure you've have good success with your methods and i enjoy picking your brain. with that...

what happened to the pack leader mentality that we were all taught? has it been replaced with the idea that the dog and handler are equals? i mean afterall, we can't give the dog any corrections because god forbid we create conflict. 

more on the e-collar...where do you keep your transmitter? have your dogs NEVER seen the handler's hand on the transmitter? i'll tell you from experience, it doesn't take the dog seeing the hand on the transmitter and the subsequent stim very many times for them to associate the two (which by the way i'm fine with ). i WANT the dog to know that the correction came from me. afterall, he disobeyed my command. the penalty for that shouldn't be some mystical force stimulating his neck. it should be a correction from me, which in the case of off leash exercises, would be an e-collar stim.

JMO


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

E-Collar The second time I give the command he gets the stim at the same time. I don't care if he sees the transmitter or not but he better realize that when he hears the command the second time he will feel the correction.

(Still can't figure the smiley faces)


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> E-Collar The second time I give the command he gets the stim at the same time. I don't care if he sees the transmitter or not but he better realize that when he hears the command the second time he will feel the correction.
> 
> (Still can't figure the smiley faces)


so then you're not using it in the manner in which lou does (with the dog not knowing the correction came from you). you are using it to punish for improper behavior or ignored commands. this i agree with...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> lou, by no means do i think you are wrong and i am right here. i'm quite sure you've have good success with your methods and i enjoy picking your brain. with that.


I'm sure that you're getting good success with your methods. I know that I am too. But the OP on this thread is having problems with his out; and that is the single most common reason that people contact me for help. 



Tim Martens said:


> what happened to the pack leader mentality that we were all taught? has it been replaced with the idea that the dog and handler are equals? i mean afterall, we can't give the dog any corrections because god forbid we create conflict.


These days I always start my seminars off with two comments. One is that I don't have all the answers; in fact I've started calling my seminars "Part of the Answer." The other is that I'm not going to tell anyone that they're doing anything wrong. If people are happy with their methods and their results, as long as they're achieved humanely, then stick with them. I'm happy if you're happy! 

I was taught the pack leader mentality too and I still believe in it. But I don't need to physically correct my dog so that he believes that I'm the pack leader. I think there are better ways to establish myself as a fair and just leader than with physical force or Ecollar corrections. Dogs, both domestic and wild, rarely do this to one another. Mostly it's done by posturing and body language. I do it in a similar fashion. I give my dog corrections, well, actually I let the Ecollar do it, but that's not how I establish dominance. 



Tim Martens said:


> more on the e-collar...where do you keep your transmitter? have your dogs NEVER seen the handler's hand on the transmitter?


I vary it. Sometimes it's in one hand, sometimes the other. Sometimes it's clipped to my belt sometimes to my pocket. Sometimes it's in my jacket pocket, sometimes in my pants pocket. I'm careful to avoid any overt hand motions when I press the button. 



Tim Martens said:


> i'll tell you from experience, it doesn't take the dog seeing the hand on the transmitter and the subsequent stim very many times for them to associate the two (which by the way i'm fine with ). i WANT the dog to know that the correction came from me.


If this works for you that's great. You're not alone in this. In fact probably more people want their dog to know that the correction came from them than do it my way. 



Tim Martens said:


> afterall, he disobeyed my command. the penalty for that shouldn't be some mystical force stimulating his neck.


I'd prefer that he think that it came from "the universe." This eliminates me from the equation, eliminating conflict AND it has the dog becoming more responsible for his actions. After all, if he knows that it's me that's giving him the correction, if he's out of my sight he might try to get away with something. Once he discovers that if I'm not in sight, he CAN get away with something, he's very likely to repeat it. If he thinks it's the universe doing it, if he thinks that it's inevitable, anytime he doesn’t obey a command, he's not as likely to try and "sneak" something. 



Tim Martens said:


> it should be a correction from me, which in the case of off leash exercises, would be an e-collar stim.


As long as you're happy with this, so am I. But I think we' re better off if we eliminate the conflict from our relationship with the dog. 

I'm sure that many reading this have either seen or experienced a dog biting the handler. I've been working and training biting dogs for about 28 years and I've never had a handler bitten by his own dog out of conflict. Many of those are dogs that DID bite the handler before I came along.


----------



## Johan Dekinder (Sep 17, 2007)

For my problem we used the e-collar like this (as I said I got help) : 
low stim ; I ask for an "out", wait for 2 secs, than say "NO" and the dog gets the stim at the same time of the "NO". Reason behind this is that the dog doesn't associate the "Out" with stim but the "NO".. with a stim.

Regards.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Shucks....looks like Jerry is right on this one. The ball-tap just pushes them into the bite deeper. Kinda like driving decoys out of the swamp at 16, bug filled and ill tempered.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

interesting. thanks lou.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I was taught the pack leader mentality too and I still believe in it. But I don't need to physically correct my dog so that he believes that I'm the pack leader. I think there are better ways to establish myself as a fair and just leader than with physical force or Ecollar corrections. Dogs, both domestic and wild, *rarely* do this to one another. *Mostly* it's done by posturing and body language.


just wanted to touch on this. i always find it interesting when wolf behavior is brought into modern, domesticated dog training conversations. let's assume that's true. what about the other times (that is not "rarely" or "mostly")? how are conflicts resolved that arise between pack members who quarrel over their status? the times when posturing and body language don't dissuade the lower ranking member from trying to raise his status?

the other thing about this situation is that in the wild, pack rank really only affects two things. eating and mating. sure there are things that the alpha makes decisions on (like where to hunt and where to establish the den, but those things are rarely challengable offenses by lower members). so for the most part, i believe, the number of true challenges are minimal because the things that the lower ranked members are asked are few. now a working dog where we are giving our dogs many tasks to complete offer many more opportunities for the dog to challenge rank.

so if you assume the above is true (not saying it is. there is opinion mixed with fact in there), then how do you meet these constant attempts at challenging rank? while i don't necessarily believe every command that is ignored is a rank challenge, some are, and the ones that aren't can have a cummulative effect. this is especially true for the new dog/handler team as these challenges will be fewer as the team's relationship is cemented through proper training. 

thoughts?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> just wanted to touch on this. i always find it interesting when wolf behavior is brought into modern, domesticated dog training conversations.


I know that dogs are not wolves. But they probably have a common ancestor and share many drives and traits. 



Tim Martens said:


> let's assume that's true. what about the other times (that is not "rarely" or "mostly")? how are conflicts resolved that arise between pack members who quarrel over their status? the times when posturing and body language don't dissuade the lower ranking member from trying to raise his status?


Those squabbles are going to be resolved by mock fighting and if that doesn't work, then by real fighting. The former is common, the latter is rare and only occurs when the first fails. Usually this is with dogs that have not been properly socialized, hopefully not with any dogs that are in use in LE. 



Tim Martens said:


> the other thing about this situation is that in the wild, pack rank really only affects two things. eating and mating.


While we're not dealing with mating, eating is very much aligned with hunting, and also with the elements of prey drive, chasing, catching, killing and eating of prey. Bite work is part of this in the chasing, catching and killing (although we don't let it go to this end). 



Tim Martens said:


> so for the most part, i believe, the number of true challenges are minimal because the things that the lower ranked members are asked are few. now a working dog where we are giving our dogs many tasks to complete offer many more opportunities for the dog to challenge rank.


I agree. 



Tim Martens said:


> so if you assume the above is true (not saying it is. there is opinion mixed with fact in there), then how do you meet these constant attempts at challenging rank?


I don't get them. I'm very laissez-faire about most behaviors. I don't advocate sport type competition for police dogs so I'm not rigid about the quality (of heeling for example). It's OK if the dog is 4"-5" out of position. I'm not doing competition OB. I'm doing tactical OB. The dog has to hurry into position, but the fine details are not important. 

When corrections are made, the Ecollar is used, which the dog has come to regard as the universe making him uncomfortable for whatever the violation is. One reason that I don't want the dog to think that the correction comes from the handler. I also, whenever possible, don't make corrections but give affirmative commands instead. For example, if a dog is going up a flight of stairs but I want him to stay on this floor, I don't say "No." as do many handlers. Instead I give a gentler "Here" command and send him out on a search again. 



Tim Martens said:


> while i don't necessarily believe every command that is ignored is a rank challenge, some are and the ones that aren't can have a cummulative effect.


Can you give an example? Since my dogs believe that the universe punishes them and that they are in charge of this (their behavior determines when and if they get stimmed, and if they do, when it stops) there's no conflict with the handler, hence no rank challenge. 



Tim Martens said:


> this is especially true for the new dog/handler team as these challenges will be fewer as the team's relationship is cemented through proper training.


I have handlers establish their position early in the relationship with food and yielding. If I'm problem solving, I have them do about the same thing, ignoring what's come before. 

There's an article I wrote on this in the training section of this forum that discusses this. 

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=375


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Great article Lou... thank you for taking the time!


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I know that dogs are not wolves. But they probably have a common ancestor and share many drives and traits.


ah, now i remember why we had cross words with one another. you are so easily put on the defensive. i have typed to you in this thread with kid gloves, yet you assume the worst with every one of my posts. i know you know that dogs aren't wolves. i wasn't saying that you bringing in wolf behavior was some sort of weakness or ineptness. i meant exactly what i said. i think it is fascinating to compare wolf behavior with modern domesticated dog behavior. period. there is nothing else behind that statement. don't be so defensive...



Lou Castle said:


> Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine the type of handler who's been trained that he has to alpha roll his dog once a week to remain the alpha. Also imagine that he's been trained never to let his dog be on top of him. The handler gets into a fight, and like most fights it winds up on the ground. He calls his dog for assistance and as the dog runs to the scene he sees the 'alpha dog' on the ground, someplace he's never seen him. He remembers that this 'alpha dog' has been rolling him every week since they've been together and maintaining his alpha position with brute force. He sees this alpha dog fighting with a complete stranger, someone who's never hurt him or done anything to him before. Do you think it's possible that he'll think that NOW is a good time to rise to the top of the pack? Could be!


wow. that shows some pretty analytical thinking on the part of the dog don't you think? if that is how you feel, it's hard to believe this:



Lou Castle said:


> Since my dogs believe that the universe punishes them and that they are in charge of this (their behavior determines when and if they get stimmed, and if they do, when it stops) there's no conflict with the handler, hence no rank challenge.


so this incredibly cerebral animal that is able to connect the dots from harsh corrections from the handler, to playful dominance with the handler, to a real world fight with the handler in a submissive position, to a chance to increase his rank, yet can't connect the dots from command, to disobedience, to "mystical" correction from the universe? i guess seeing is believing and i suppose i'd have to see a dog that had received e-collar corrections for a few years and NOT know it came from the handler before i'd accept it. **slips on kid gloves** not a knock on you. probably more so on me and my missouri-esque tendencies.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> I know that dogs are not wolves. But they probably have a common ancestor and share many drives and traits.





Tim Martens said:


> there is nothing else behind that statement. don't be so defensive.


Tim I wasn't being defensive. I was just re-iterating what you had said and letting you know that I was aware of the fact. I know a few people who rely heavily on the thought that wolves=dogs as far as their instincts and drives. I'm not one of them. 

My article (here: http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBull...read.php?t=375 ) states,


> Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine the type of handler who's been trained that he has to alpha roll his dog once a week to remain the alpha. Also imagine that he's been trained never to let his dog be on top of him. The handler gets into a fight, and like most fights it winds up on the ground. He calls his dog for assistance and as the dog runs to the scene he sees the 'alpha dog' on the ground, someplace he's never seen him. He remembers that this 'alpha dog' has been rolling him every week since they've been together and maintaining his alpha position with brute force. He sees this alpha dog fighting with a complete stranger, someone who's never hurt him or done anything to him before. Do you think it's possible that he'll think that NOW is a good time to rise to the top of the pack? Could be!





Tim Martens said:


> wow. that shows some pretty analytical thinking on the part of the dog don't you think? if that is how you feel, it's hard to believe this:


I don't think it takes the dog any _analytical thinking _at all. These are things that he knows all the time. He doesn't go through a step-by-step thought pattern as the article outlines, that's done for the benefit of the reader so he knows what the dog is aware of. The dog knows that he's been getting his ass kicked regularly and now he sees what may be an opportunity for payback to move up in the pack. 

I don't think there's anything different going on there that's any different in a wild dog pack where the #2 dog is thinking of moving up by taking on the #1 dog. It's always "on the tip of his tongue" and at the first sign of weakness from the #1, may manifest. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Since my dogs believe that the universe punishes them and that they are in charge of this (their behavior determines when and if they get stimmed, and if they do, when it stops) there's no conflict with the handler, hence no rank challenge.





Tim Martens said:


> so this incredibly cerebral animal that is able to connect the dots from harsh corrections from the handler, to playful dominance with the handler, to a real world fight with the handler in a submissive position, to a chance to increase his rank, yet can't connect the dots from command, to disobedience, to "mystical" correction from the universe?


I think that the connections you're talking about aren't step-by-step thought patterns. They happen and the dog is aware of them. He doesn't have to go thorugh any thought process at all, it's all stuff that is known to him from his experience. Let me try an analogy. When you knock on the door of a house and it opens to reveal someone standing in front of you with a large butcher knife, you don't have to go step-by-step to get your gun out, back up, or go hands on, whichever you chose based on your CQB experience and training. You simply see the situation and react. There's not a conscious thought pattern. 

I've been in this situation and suddenly my gun was in my hand. I wasn't aware of my hand moving to it, unsnapping the holster release or drawing it, but there it was, leveled at the suspect. At the same time I was moving laterally to put him out of position. None of this took any conscious thought. I'm sure that you've done the same thing many times. I don't think it's any different for the dog. 



Tim Martens said:


> i guess seeing is believing and i suppose i'd have to see a dog that had received e-collar corrections for a few years and NOT know it came from the handler before i'd accept it. **slips on kid gloves** not a knock on you. probably more so on me and my missouri-esque tendencies.


I don't have a problem with you doubting it Tim. And I don't think that the "kid gloves" are necessary, unless you were on the verge of getting rude. I'm a big boy and I think I can take it. Anyway, if I hadn't been doing it for years and seeing it with the dogs that I've worked with, I might not accept it either. 

But a couple of associated comments. Remember that I'm working at very low levels of stim so it's really not a big deal to the dog. Also, Stephen Lindsay, author of _Handbook of Applied Dog Training and Behaviour _says in Vol. III


> In practice, *dogs do not appear to link E(lectrical) S(tim) with the handler, especially persons with whom the dog is closely attached and familiar. *In fact, the most interesting uses of the collar depend on this lack of aversive association, including lasting reward and opponent safety effects . (Emphasis added)


So I'm not alone in knowing that this can be the result when the training is done in such a manner to allow it. 

He goes on to say,


> competent electronic training appears to promote positive social attachment, safety, and reward effects that may be provided and amplified via affectionate petting and reassuring praise. The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that ES escape/avoidance and pain reduction should promote long-term effects that are incompatible with fear and stress, *making the trainer an object of significant extrinsic reward that actually enhances the dog's welfare via an improved capacity for social coping, learning, and adaptation. * (Emphasis added)


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I think that the connections you're talking about aren't step-by-step thought patterns. They happen and the dog is aware of them. He doesn't have to go thorugh any thought process at all, it's all stuff that is known to him from his experience. Let me try an analogy. When you knock on the door of a house and it opens to reveal someone standing in front of you with a large butcher knife, you don't have to go step-by-step to get your gun out, back up, or go hands on, whichever you chose based on your CQB experience and training. You simply see the situation and react. There's not a conscious thought pattern.
> 
> I've been in this situation and suddenly my gun was in my hand. I wasn't aware of my hand moving to it, unsnapping the holster release or drawing it, but there it was, leveled at the suspect. At the same time I was moving laterally to put him out of position. None of this took any conscious thought. I'm sure that you've done the same thing many times. I don't think it's any different for the dog.


so what you're saying is that through experience and disdain for the overly dominant handler, the dog looks for every opportunity it can to advance it's rank over the handler, while your dogs don't have any desire to advance their rank over the handler because the handler has never corrected him? is that it in a nutshell?

i guess that's not too far off from what i have read about wolf behavior. sometimes the omega male is the overthrown alpha male in the pack. often times if he was a heavy handed alpha, the pack treats him very poorly as an omega dog whereas if he was a fair alpha, he just doesn't get the normal privileges that the higher ranking wolves get. 




Lou Castle said:


> I don't have a problem with you doubting it Tim. And I don't think that the "kid gloves" are necessary, unless you were on the verge of getting rude. I'm a big boy and I think I can take it. Anyway, if I hadn't been doing it for years and seeing it with the dogs that I've worked with, I might not accept it either.


i wouldn't ever want to intentionally be rude to you. i probably have in the past when i've gotten carried away, but obviously it's a topic i'm passionate about and perhaps sometimes discretion gives way to that passion. as far as our pack, you are definitely the alpha and i'm a low ranking pack member. i know you have forgotten more about dog training than i know. i also know that i learn best through debate and always enjoy discussions with you. 

in the end, we all want dogs that will do what we ask. there is more than one way to arrive there and i'm always looking for new ways to get there. while it may seem like i'm arguing just to argue and defend what i have been taught, i really just want to see your reply and the thought process behind it to see if it's something i can and want to try. btw, if you are ever up here again, i will try my damnest to be there...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> so what you're saying is that through experience and disdain for the overly dominant handler, the dog looks for every opportunity it can to advance it's rank over the handler


I don't think that it happens at every opportunity, but once is too many. 



Tim Martens said:


> while your dogs don't have any desire to advance their rank over the handler because the handler has never corrected him?


It's not just that there haven't been any corrections, it's that other areas of conflict have been eliminated as well. 



Tim Martens said:


> as far as our pack, you are definitely the alpha and i'm a low ranking pack member. i know you have forgotten more about dog training than i know. i also know that i learn best through debate and always enjoy discussions with you.


I don't know about that first part, lol. Truth be told I'm jealous of you and anyone else who's out there working a dog. 

I definitely learn more when I disagree with someone. If we all agreed, there's not be much sense to these forums. Someone would make a statement, we'd all say "Yep." and that would be the end of it. Having conversations like this makes me think more about what I do and why I do it. It only makes me better at it, if only for the reason that it makes me better at explaining it to others. 

Perhaps this is the sort of stuff that needs to be seen to be accepted. As I said, if you're a "doubting Thomas" I understand and have no problem with it. 



Tim Martens said:


> while it may seem like i'm arguing just to argue


I've never gotten that from you. 



Tim Martens said:


> i really just want to see your reply and the thought process behind it to see if it's something i can and want to try.


I don't need much of an excuse to talk about this stuff. Lol. 



Tim Martens said:


> btw, if you are ever up here again, i will try my damnest to be there...


I'd be glad to meet you and discuss this stuff. Even better I could show you.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I'd be glad to meet you and discuss this stuff. Even better I could show you.


i'm trying to get my department to send me to west covina in march for the skidds/kats class that brad smith is putting on. don't know if it will happen, but if it does, how far away are you from w.c.?


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Tim Martens said:


> i'm trying to get my department to send me to west covina in march for the skidds/kats class


So so Lucky!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> i'm trying to get my department to send me to west covina in march for the skidds/kats class that brad smith is putting on. don't know if it will happen, but if it does, how far away are you from w.c.?


Tim I've got an email out to Brad. He's out of town right now but should reply as soon as he gets back. I asked if I could help out (I've instructed at the class before) or at least come observe, so either way (if it's OK with Brad), I'll be there. I look forward to meeting you.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

My "out" issue. On the bite suit, Rock is VERY focused on kicking the "bad guy's" butt. The out command wasn't quick on Sunday. The decoy went to the ground and my Bouv was with him every step of the way. I commanded "out" and he didn't. Using the e-collar on the lowest possible setting , I gave him a tap with the command. Rock "outed" and stayed in a platz and on guard. I did it twice and on the third command no electric. The prong collar works but can saet them deeper into the bite. 

I did an out and had the decoy stand up and run... bite "out" and rewarded with the jacket carry off the field.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> My "out" issue. On the bite suit, Rock is VERY focused on kicking the "bad guy's" butt. The out command wasn't quick on Sunday. The decoy went to the ground and my Bouv was with him every step of the way. I commanded "out" and he didn't. Using the e-collar on the lowest possible setting , I gave him a tap with the command. Rock "outed" and stayed in a platz and on guard. I did it twice and on the third command no electric. The prong collar works but can saet them deeper into the bite.
> 
> I did an out and had the decoy stand up and run... bite "out" and rewarded with the jacket carry off the field.


Perhaps the decoy going to ground up'ed the prey drive in the dog further than the level of control you have on him.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Tim I've got an email out to Brad. He's out of town right now but should reply as soon as he gets back. I asked if I could help out (I've instructed at the class before) or at least come observe, so either way (if it's OK with Brad), I'll be there. I look forward to meeting you.


haha. it's no sure thing. training is hard to come by in my dept. of course if it's up to me, i'll be there. rarely do they ever leave anything up to me...


----------

