# Is the term Leadership in dog training good or bad??



## Dave Colborn

Bob Scott said:


> I'm a *HUGE* believer in "drop/forget" the leash when starting out a new pup. That's where leadership trumps training!


Bob, I don't really know you, but this is a question that I have long had. So, although this isn't personally directed at you, I'd like to hear your answer as well as others who use leadership in training, and see if you can help me understand. Below are some of my thoughts on leadership.



Isn't the appearance of leadership just a conditioned response (training)? Whether it be us or a pack mate teaching? I have always heard and scoffed at leadership with dogs, because , any behavior a dog shows, he does for his own benefit or desire, though learning and genetics. 


I thought leadership in the context of dogs, was just a device for trainers to teach PEOPLE how to interact (train) their dogs better, to make them understand, since operant conditioning and classical conditioning are so hard to explain....(that was sarcasm). 


I also believe simpler is better, the truth, if you will. I don't use leadership as a term very much, when talking to people unless to explain leadership is really conditioning or they just don't get it any other way. IE he doesn't push through the door because he has been corrected or rewarded for incorrect or correct behavior. This as a side effect, teaches the dog to do what you want and lets you appear to be in charge. Hundreds of good repetition over time are generalized to other areas to appear that leadership, has put a wild beast under our leadership. Take the same wild beast and teach him a place command. You'll have the same effect with one command, if you send him from place to place in your house. But that same dog let off leash, may still run to the ends of the earth if a recall was not also conditioned. Does this make you a bad leader or a bad trainer or both? 


He may also come up leash as well, if his genetics and training tell him there is a benefit. I have seen (and had) dogs that would react poorly to one handler and well to another. Strong dogs. Put you in the hospital kind. Was the second handler a better leader, or did he just understand and communicate to the dog what the dog wanted through good training. Did the dog that continued to bite the handler through out his life have such wrong conditioning over the top of genetics, that Patton couldn't have straightened him out? I have seen some posts of don't fight with a fighter. Isn't that good training, not leadership? IE take a tough bastard to all good things and pretty soon, he inadvertently though good operant conditioning is doing what you want. Conditioned.


_So, my one and only question that I would like answered, in this thread is, what does the term *leadership* add to or detract from dog training . _


----------



## Bob Scott

Dave, I think it's more about reading the dog, connecting with the dog and having the respect of the dog and that doesn't have mean heavy handed control (to me). 
How many times have you seen folks that are taught to do this and that in order to get this or that response from the dog and still not understand the why of what they are doing? It's as much an instinct with some people as a learned thing. Raising a dog without putting conscious thought to training but still having a dog under great control.
How many time have you seen a dog go through a perfect performance and still not be controlled off lead on the street? That's not uncommon in AKC trial dogs and I've seen my share of Schutzhund trial dogs that way also. 
I KNOW you've see dogs that were guaranteed to protect yet run when the time comes. :-D Not really knowing your own dogs just might have a lot to do with that. 
Leadership is about having a good "truck dog"! Not really sure if this is any sort of legit answer but the only one I have.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Bob Scott said:


> Dave, I think it's more about reading the dog, connecting with the dog and having the respect of the dog and that doesn't have mean heavy handed control (to me).


 
Heavy handed? With tough dogs or dogs with bad experiences, I learned early on , if you take them from one good thing to another and don't set up stupid training, you don't have to get physical, nor is it effective. IE a pinch collar correction can and does stimulate pain in a dog, will DEFINITELY get you whacked with some dogs. Why not teach them what you want through negative punishment or through positive reinforcement prior to adding positive punishment or negative reinforcement to give yourself and option other than the reward (giving or with holding.)

I think you answered it for me without answering directly, though. You train your dogs, they follow you. It seems magical to others, because after years, you are really good at it. You are consistent with both punishment and reinforcement and get a good product from operant conditioning. You don't have a set plan that you explained, but you certainly have set behaviors you allow and don't allow. No leadership, just conditioning.

My point is, that if you explain how to condition one behavior to a human, they can repeat it. If you say leadership, it's vague and misunderstood. 

To me, detection is the clearest form of obedience and it rarely needs anything other than motivation and genetics


----------



## Bob Scott

Your answer makes more sense then mine! :lol: :wink:
I do agree with the negative positive thing. I've become a big fan of markers and have had pretty good luck with it. I haven't given a physical correction in training for going on 9 yrs now. Not sure I'll carry it that far again but I really wanted to see how far I could take it.


----------



## Sara Waters

Well I dont for one moment believe that every dog is just a product of conditioned responses I think it is more of a grey area. I have seen sheepdogs do some very brainy stockwork which goes beyond just instinct and training but required intelligence to solve the problem. I had an arab horse once that blew me away with the way he solved problems, he was an odd one and lots of fun.

I think about my cattle dogs in the past, I didnt spent huge numbers of hours and repitions with them as I was travelling and busy and they came with me and were expected to behave. My first cattle dog was the best ever. I never used a lead I never really trained her yet she was 100% reliable in every situation. She was smart and loyal where I went she followed and waited if she had to, for many hours under my car unleashed, never distracted by anything. She must have conditioned herself LOL. 

I dont personally use the term leadership, but my dogs know it in a subtle kind of way. Smart dogs will defintely test you, they are masters of reading body language and can detect any form of weakness that they can exploit. My dogs know when I am not really serious and they sure know when I am, they also know when I have read them about to do something they know I dont like, you can see it in their expressions. I call it a relationship. I dont think I would like a relationship with an animal that was simply a product of conditioning, not so fun. I must say I am not big on 100s of repetitions and my dogs dont get any generalisation living in isolation as they do, but they sure know how to behave when we go to the city. 

They read me, I read them, and we have certain ground rules that are implicit, have we conditioned each other LOL.

I very rarely use positive punishment, and much prefer reinforcing good behaviour. If I use postive punishment it is probably more by the tone of my voice or my body language. although I have warmed a butt on rare occassions. Dont generally have to.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Damn Dave that read like poetry, you got a real nice style. I like it. I always learn something from your posts. So thanks for putting a smile on my face but more importantly, thanks for contributing.

Oh, and I know you asked for a very specific type of response to your opening question but that's all I got and I hope you don't mind.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Sarah, I respect your opinion and thanks for the reply. Could you, for the sake of discussion, give an example of a complex task that a dog "solved" on it's own. You give your take on why it happened, and I'll give mine. I know little about stock work, but, if my ideas are right, then it's just a conditioned response, and I should be able to explain it :grin:

Also think of this. They are learning if they are out of the cage. In a cage they are waiting to be a dog again. So if your cattle dog was great, I'll submit that it had a genetic propensity to do the things you mentioned, or was trained without you conciously doing it, because your reward and correct, giving the dog input.


You mentioned the dog possibly conditioning itself. With the help of the environement (us, dogs, cars, the breeze, smells, etc) that just describes training. So the dog lays in shade. it's more comfortable, cooler. doesn't have to move around to not get stepped on, etc.. learned behavior, conditioned by a stepped on tail or an interrupted nap, or the reward of being cool, or, the list goes on. 





Sara Waters said:


> Well I dont for one moment believe that every dog is just a product of conditioned responses I think it is more of a grey area. I have seen sheepdogs do some very brainy stockwork which goes beyond just instinct and training but required intelligence to solve the problem. I had an arab horse once that blew me away with the way he solved problems, he was an odd one and lots of fun.
> 
> I think about my cattle dogs in the past, I didnt spent huge numbers of hours and repitions with them as I was travelling and busy and they came with me and were expected to behave. My first cattle dog was the best ever. I never used a lead I never really trained her yet she was 100% reliable in every situation. She was smart and loyal where I went she followed and waited if she had to, for many hours under my car unleashed, never distracted by anything. She must have conditioned herself LOL.
> 
> I dont personally use the term leadership, but my dogs know it in a subtle kind of way. Smart dogs will defintely test you, they are masters of reading body language and can detect any form of weakness that they can exploit. My dogs know when I am not really serious and they sure know when I am, they also know when I have read them about to do something they know I dont like, you can see it in their expressions. I call it a relationship. I dont think I would like a relationship with an animal that was simply a product of conditioning, not so fun. I must say I am not big on 100s of repetitions and my dogs dont get any generalisation living in isolation as they do, but they sure know how to behave when we go to the city.
> 
> They read me, I read them, and we have certain ground rules that are implicit, have we conditioned each other LOL.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I know exactly what Sara means. How many times did I stand out there with Rory trying to figure out HOW I was going to direct him to do something complex with the stock and he did it on his own and then would stop and look up at me. Or I'm standing there thinking about sending him one way or the other but afraid disaster will strike. I can't think of a different way to do it so send him and he does it but adds that little something extra that pulls it through. Ever look at a head of stock and the dog singles that one to you. The first time that happened I was sorting 130 head by ear tag. Not trained! There are things we DON'T TRAIN OR CONDITION because we don't know how or haven't seen that situation before. There is a partnership in the work that goes beyond training. We rely so much on untrained instincts not just for the stock but in relation to us. The first time my dogs put themselves between me and fight stock, they hadn't been trained, conditioned or rewarded. That's instinct and pack at play. You can't set up every possible scenario or situation. They read it and know its happening before we do. Leadership is hard to explain. Its what you exude from inside and like Bob said, doesn't really have anything to do with corrections per se. We talk about the true alpha dogs--the ones that never have to lay a tooth on anyone yet the dogs all recognize him as the leader. I've tried working with a couple of friends of mine in discussing the leadership aspect and bottom line is they can't fake it. One is having pack chaos as the moment. Its obvious her dogs think they can push her around--literally. Even if you have them employ the same physical moves they are ineffective because they don't have what's coming from inside and possibly their body language reads totally different. The dog still considers them passive. The only people that I've communicated with that get this sort of partnership in the job that goes beyond training and conditioned responses is a SAR person. 


T


----------



## Dave Colborn

I have been off the board for a while and I missed the cut and paste exchanges. Sorry that this doesn't read lou-long, but in tribute to him I did what I could.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Ever look at a head of stock and the dog singles that one to you.


Please note, that I mentioned genetics as well as conditioned response, above. I can look at a horses ass in a round pen and get them to turn into me and put their eyes on me. I can look at the fore end and get them to slow down and turn away from me while running in a round pen. Is that leadership, or conditioning of a response based on the animals genetic propensity to do things. Animals are just more sensitive to body language as they don't talk to each other. Dogs have eyes and are always watching us.

Ask a detection trainer how many handlers cue their dogs by their body language, held breath, stopped talking change when the dog gets close to odor. They, and I, don't even know what we're doing sometimes, but a good detection trainer can see it a few steps away. The dog reads it exactly. This is why blind hides are paramount in detection. 

Because you haven't trained it, doesn't mean you didn't do it, and have the dog see it, thus them learning, when you weren't "teaching". This is why I stand by the statement about a dog learning if he is out of the crate. Let David Frost, Me, or Ariel Peldunas, or any trainer/handler that deals with detection dogs come watch you work stock a couple times. I bet one of us or maybe a poker player, could find your "tells". The benefit to you would you would then understand what you are doing when you get good results, vs. thinking it's something indescribeable. If you could figure that out, wouldn't you agree it takes you to a whole new level as a trainer?

From a single head of stock in the beginning, you probably have a location on the animal that you look when you are teaching the dog to move the stock. Don't suppose a dog might remember that. or the area you are facing like a dog doing a directional send. They can read us precisely and do when rewarded and corrected.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> There are things we DON'T TRAIN OR CONDITION because we don't know how or haven't seen that situation before.


What, exactly? I bet I can piece together enough parts that the dog can chain it together with some genetic help (I don't think you'll get a french bulldog to herd, is what I am saying). Get a well selected dog, and training and genetics will carry it.




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> We rely so much on untrained instincts not just for the stock but in relation to us. The first time my dogs put themselves between me and fight stock, they hadn't been trained, conditioned or rewarded.


First sentence good genetics, coupled with training. Second sentence dogs will stand up to another dog, why wouldn't you suspect that they'd to it to a prey animal without training. Some dogs will even stand up to a man with no prior training. That was just good dog selection on your part, that he protected you, not leadership. 




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its what you exude from inside and like Bob said, doesn't really have anything to do with corrections per se.


You and Bob must have really whipped a dog at some point to have such a strong connection between leadership and correction. (JK sort of, but it isn't a big part of leadership that I know) I hadn't mentioned correction til Bob brought it up. If I believed in leadership in animals, I would believe in it more like the strong leaders I have had. They were smarter and stronger than one who needs to correct. Although they could and did, it wasn't primary or often. 




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I've tried working with a couple of friends of mine in discussing the leadership aspect and bottom line is they can't fake it. One is having pack chaos as the moment. Its obvious her dogs think they can push her around--literally.


So the leadership thing didn't work for them. That's a point for my team. Let's now treat the dogs as if they are dogs, and we are humans. We have thumbs and are higher up the food chain... You teach the dog a place command and a recall for them. Show them how to be consistent and explain operant conditioning and why it works. The place command will sort out most bad behavior as the dog isn't allowed to move from the place other than when conditioned to. You can use marker training for this, but I would plan on backing it up with correction at some point.




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Even if you have them employ the same physical moves they are ineffective because they don't have what's coming from inside and possibly their body language reads totally different.


This supports my idea that Leadership is Hooey. And yes, that was Hooey with a capital H. The dog in your scenario is *conditioned *not to listen to the owner. I have seen this multiple times. I take the lead. Reward. Bam, I have an attentive pupil. Worse or different dogs in different situations, one correction, same thing. I have begun to condition the response. This is the reason in-board training works better for dogs with very conditioned bad behavior, than the owner teaching OB themselves. All the bad things the dog is conditioned to, the environment, the owner, repeated commands, inconsistency, all gone when they go to a facility to be trained. On that note, this is why problem behaviors are so hard to fix sometimes, because you aren't training a behavior, you are counter conditioning a bad one. Which is also why training mutually exclusive behaviors is better than attacking some problems. IE a dog that rebites after an out. If possible for whatever work you are doing, teach him a recall from the bite. The behavior of returning to the handler is mutually exclusive to the rebite behavior. Can't do both at the same time. 

Although it's nice to think we are natural leaders with dogs, and this may feed our ego, we are just better trainers than our non dog training friends and we should be as this is our passion.


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> Sarah, I respect your opinion and thanks for the reply. Could you, for the sake of discussion, give an example of a complex task that a dog "solved" on it's own. You give your take on why it happened, and I'll give mine. I know little about stock work, but, if my ideas are right, then it's just a conditioned response, and I should be able to explain it :grin:
> 
> Also think of this. They are learning if they are out of the cage. In a cage they are waiting to be a dog again. So if your cattle dog was great, I'll submit that it had a genetic propensity to do the things you mentioned, or was trained without you conciously doing it, because your reward and correct, giving the dog input.
> 
> 
> You mentioned the dog possibly conditioning itself. With the help of the environement (us, dogs, cars, the breeze, smells, etc) that just describes training. So the dog lays in shade. it's more comfortable, cooler. doesn't have to move around to not get stepped on, etc.. learned behavior, conditioned by a stepped on tail or an interrupted nap, or the reward of being cool, or, the list goes on.


A guy I knew was trying out a friends dogs so it had never been in this paddock which was large and rough. He sent the dog out and it dissapeared we were watching from a high point. The dog appeared with the mob of about 400 sheep. There was a large area of salty, potentially boggy area between us and the dog and sheep that most dogs would have driven the sheep right across especially if they didnt know the paddock as it looked firm. We watched this dog negotiate the sheep away from us which is counter instinct and right up around out of sight and back through a firm path that she found. The dog had made the decision independently of us. This particular dog was a particularly intelligent animal in the way it worked stock and was a dog you could pretty much leave to its own devices to make good decisions, if a choice had to be made.

Intelligence is an inherited trait and Tully Williams in his book describes that a good sheepdog should have the right balance of intelligence and instinct. Intelligence without instinct is no good and good instinct without intelligence is also less desirable. He gives some very good examples of what he considers to be brainy stockwork in his book. 

My arab horse surprised us one day when I heard him calling from a paddock. He had stationed himself as close as possible to our house and when I appeared outside to see what the racket was about he doubled his efforts. So I went down to find out what he wanted. He presented his body to me and I wondered what he was doing. I then realised that the other horses were racing wildly around the paddock and realised it was bott flies. I took off my sandal and he stood like a rock while I slapped away under his belly and killed the darn thing. He continued to do this all his life and always gave a little whinney when the fly was dead. No other horse I have ever owned figured out this strategy. They all just raced around wildly. He was a strange horse and did all sorts of quirky things that spoke of a remarkable intelligence. He was a horse I really felt connected to. 

I remember he shied badly one day when a goat suddenly appeared out of a ditch. I wasnt concentrating came off and he had apparently bolted for home as I saw him dissapearing round a bend. I thought crap now I have to walk so I lay awhile longer as it hurt, next minute he appeared trotting back down the path and I had his breath in my face and he was checking me over neighing in my face, helping me up when I leaned on his reigns. He had come back for me. My other horses would have just gone home and did. 

I retired him as an old horse to my brother in laws horse stud to live in luxury and I hadnt seen him for a couple of years as I was working up north. I had a dream one night out of the blue and he had come to say goodbye, I still remember it clearly. I told my partner when I woke up as it was such an odd dream. An hour later my mother rang to tell me that they had found him dead in his paddock. I am not really a believer of these things but to this day I think it was a helluva coincidence, which logic tells me it was, but I cant shake that feeling.

There are many occassions when an animal will do something that reminds you that there is I believe more going on than just conditioned responses. Conditioning is obviously a powerfull force in all living creatures, ourselves included and plays a major role in the way we respond. But I dont think it accounts for everything in some animals.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Sara, where ever any of that might come from (conditioned responses, instinct, intelligence, etc.), all I can say to that is the things stated above exemplify why my mastiff is, and probably will always be, my favorite dog. If I only had one to spend the rest of my life with, it would be her.


----------



## Dave Colborn

OK. Part of this is getting past leadership to...I don't know what. But I believe in the I don't know what with your horse. Maybe explainable, maybe not. This makes me want to talk about the hive mind and Napolean Hill.

Although your post is off the leadership thing and on to intelligence....When a dog drives a sheep, the sheep are independent of the dog, yes? Will a sheep kill itself by running into a bog? Did they turn independently to avoid the bog, and the dog turned them back to you appropriately when the sheep were willing to be driven past the bog? If so, the dog was reacting to the sheep as trained. Had the dog that your friend was trying out smelled the bog, if the sheep hadn't? Had that dog encountered a bog before when your friend had it and wanted to avoid it himself? I think that may be conditioned if I am getting the picture correctly. After all, a dog doesn't have to learn to sit everywhere. teach him in one spot, generalize the behavior and bam. the dog sits most anywhere. I would like to continue on this scenario. I think it's a good one. Do you believe my perception of what went on to be possible if not probable?





Sara Waters said:


> A guy I knew was trying out a friends dogs so it had never been in this paddock which was large and rough. He sent the dog out and it dissapeared we were watching from a high point. The dog appeared with the mob of about 400 sheep. There was a large area of salty, potentially boggy area between us and the dog and sheep that most dogs would have driven the sheep right across especially if they didnt know the paddock as it looked firm. We watched this dog negotiate the sheep away from us which is counter instinct and right up around out of sight and back through a firm path that she found. The dog had made the decision independently of us. This particular dog was a particularly intelligent animal in the way it worked stock and was a dog you could pretty much leave to its own devices to make good decisions, if a choice had to be made.
> 
> Intelligence is an inherited trait and Tully Williams in his book describes that a good sheepdog should have the right balance of intelligence and instinct. Intelligence without instinct is no good and good instinct without intelligence is also less desirable. He gives some very good examples of what he considers to be brainy stockwork in his book.
> 
> My arab horse surprised us one day when I heard him calling from a paddock. He had stationed himself as close as possible to our house and when I appeared outside to see what the racket was about he doubled his efforts. So I went down to find out what he wanted. He presented his body to me and I wondered what he was doing. I then realised that the other horses were racing wildly around the paddock and realised it was bott flies. I took off my sandal and he stood like a rock while I slapped away under his belly and killed the darn thing. He continued to do this all his life and always gave a little whinney when the fly was dead. No other horse I have ever owned figured out this strategy. They all just raced around wildly. He was a strange horse and did all sorts of quirky things that spoke of a remarkable intelligence. He was a horse I really felt connected to.
> 
> I remember he shied badly one day when a goat suddenly appeared out of a ditch. I wasnt concentrating came off and he had apparently bolted for home as I saw him dissapearing round a bend. I thought crap now I have to walk so I lay awhile longer as it hurt, next minute he appeared trotting back down the path and I had his breath in my face and he was checking me over neighing in my face, helping me up when I leaned on his reigns. He had come back for me. My other horses would have just gone home and did.
> 
> I retired him as an old horse to my brother in laws horse stud to live in luxury and I hadnt seen him for a couple of years as I was working up north. I had a dream one night out of the blue and he had come to say goodbye, I still remember it clearly. I told my partner when I woke up as it was such an odd dream. An hour later my mother rang to tell me that they had found him dead in his paddock. I am not really a believer of these things but to this day I think it was a helluva coincidence, which logic tells me it was, but I cant shake that feeling.
> 
> There are many occassions when an animal will do something that reminds you that there is I believe more going on than just conditioned responses. Conditioning is obviously a powerfull force in all living creatures, ourselves included and plays a major role in the way we respond. But I dont think it accounts for everything in some animals.


----------



## Steve Estrada

Wow great subject especially like Dave's points. I advertise "Leadership vs Dominance" and I came about this after physically dominanting a Rottweiler who had three owners by ten months having bitten all, I was given co-ownership. I hated what I did to him & he sulked being worthless until I became his leader. I now use markers & do use negative reinforcement which doesn't mean being hard, it means "very" measured! Being his leader was making him follow everywhere, when he challenged me I ignored rather than creating a conflict. It worked for him & innumerable dogs since. Yeah I'm about treating a dog as a dog first understanding the needs & conflicts, then directing/redirecting behavior. Good post!!! Thanks...


----------



## rick smith

Q:　"what does the term leadership add to or detract from dog training"
for me, just another subjective term i put in almost the same category as independence...irrelevant except maybe to describe dogs we've liked or not liked 

i just finished 6 months boarding a 5 yr old WORKING line czech/belgium blk sable gsd ... a year ago when i took the leash from the owner it did a quick B/H/BITE and took a chunk out of my arm i could use to drink sake out of for the next few months :-(
...NOT an ankle biter and def a bit on the civil side, but a nice dog made a bit worse by being allowed to be pushy by a somewhat fearful owner 

this summer owner wanted to switch to raw ... i say fine, we'll work on it here ... he sees me bring raw and shows me his beautiful teeth and snarls ... fast forward five months and he is destroying a drumstick on one end while i hold the other end, happy as a clam and wagging his tail while chowing down ... 

** leadership had nothing to do with this conditioning imo ... he just learned that snarling made his food go away and disappear
- just one item of many he learned this summer ... operantly ... no clickers used btw 

... maybe a true pack "leader" would have spit on his food before giving it to him ?? //lol//
...i'm not a pack leader by any means //rotflmao//


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. Part of this is getting past leadership to...I don't know what. But I believe in the I don't know what with your horse. Maybe explainable, maybe not. This makes me want to talk about the hive mind and Napolean Hill.
> 
> Although your post is off the leadership thing and on to intelligence....When a dog drives a sheep, the sheep are independent of the dog, yes? Will a sheep kill itself by running into a bog? Did they turn independently to avoid the bog, and the dog turned them back to you appropriately when the sheep were willing to be driven past the bog? If so, the dog was reacting to the sheep as trained. Had the dog that your friend was trying out smelled the bog, if the sheep hadn't? Had that dog encountered a bog before when your friend had it and wanted to avoid it himself? I think that may be conditioned if I am getting the picture correctly. After all, a dog doesn't have to learn to sit everywhere. teach him in one spot, generalize the behavior and bam. the dog sits most anywhere. I would like to continue on this scenario. I think it's a good one. Do you believe my perception of what went on to be possible if not probable?


 
I guess I was responding to the question of conditioning being behind everything a dog did. The sheep wouldnt have turned independently I dont think because they will graze in the salt lake bed. It is just muddy and slippy to bring a whole mob through. Your perception is probable of course. I think the way the dog was working it was deliberately avoiding it. The dog had never been in that paddock but that is not to say it had never encountered salt lakes and was generalising although it didnt come from salt lake county. My guess is that the majority of dogs would not have acted that way, they would have bought the sheep through. My dog certainly would have. There are definitely some dogs that reach a level that most dogs will never achieve. A combination of training, instinct, natural ability, experience and the ability to then combine all that for the best outcome.

I just think that in my experience with some of the things a few special animals I have known have acted that some level of independent thought process aside from conditioning was at play. Dogs will sometimes come up with a new and better way to do something and I have sometimes thought to myself, why didnt I think of that. 

Some dogs are undoubtably better at this than others. Like Nicole says there is often a very special animal that crosses your path. I currently have an old cattle dog that if someone gave me the choice of keeping just one dog, it would be her despite the fact she is old and no good for working or trialing anymore. She was just an exceptionaly intuitive dog to work with and her bond with me is above anything I have had with any of my others. I havent sat down and analysed this relationship in terms of leadership and conditioning, I just know it is different from my other current dogs. Same with that horse. However even with my others I see in them behaviour that seems to fall outside conditioning. I enjoy reading my dogs expressions and body language and sometimes you can see exactly what they are considering because I can empathise with it. 

Maybe humans and dogs have had a very long time to evolve together and become conditioned to each others responses. Research has shown that a dog will read emotions on the same side of a humans face as humans do to each other and understand how to read human body language like no other species. Apparently it is only dogs that will respond appropriately to a human pointing a direction from early puppyhood. A couple of my dogs will even look up to the sky when I point upwards.

David I dont know, I think a lot of what you say is very reasonable but I just think my instinct tells me there is more to it in some cases.


----------



## Sara Waters

I think that possibly intelligence and problem solving ability is a factor here when thinking about conditioning and leadership. I just have to show my kelpie once or twice what I want and she usually gets it, much quicker than my other dogs, but another dog has better independent from me problem solving abilities.

I guess some dogs may also be more resistant to conditioning than others (like humans) and it may not just be good or bad training at play here.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Sara Waters said:


> I guess I was responding to the question of conditioning being behind everything a dog did. The sheep wouldnt have turned independently I dont think because they will graze in the salt lake bed. It is just muddy and slippy to bring a whole mob through. Your perception is probable of course. I think the way the dog was working it was deliberately avoiding it. The dog had never been in that paddock but that is not to say it had never encountered salt lakes and was generalising although it didnt come from salt lake county. My guess is that the majority of dogs would not have acted that way, they would have bought the sheep through. My dog certainly would have. There are definitely some dogs that reach a level that most dogs will never achieve. A combination of training, instinct, natural ability, experience and the ability to then combine all that for the best outcome.
> 
> I just think that in my experience with some of the things a few special animals I have known have acted that some level of independent thought process aside from conditioning was at play. Dogs will sometimes come up with a new and better way to do something and I have sometimes thought to myself, why didnt I think of that.
> 
> Some dogs are undoubtably better at this than others. Like Nicole says there is often a very special animal that crosses your path. I currently have an old cattle dog that if someone gave me the choice of keeping just one dog, it would be her despite the fact she is old and no good for working or trialing anymore. She was just an exceptionaly intuitive dog to work with and her bond with me is above anything I have had with any of my others. I havent sat down and analysed this relationship in terms of leadership and conditioning, I just know it is different from my other current dogs. Same with that horse. However even with my others I see in them behaviour that seems to fall outside conditioning. I enjoy reading my dogs expressions and body language and sometimes you can see exactly what they are considering because I can empathise with it.
> 
> Maybe humans and dogs have had a very long time to evolve together and become conditioned to each others responses. Research has shown that a dog will read emotions on the same side of a humans face as humans do to each other and understand how to read human body language like no other species. Apparently it is only dogs that will respond appropriately to a human pointing a direction from early puppyhood. A couple of my dogs will even look up to the sky when I point upwards.
> 
> David I dont know, I think a lot of what you say is very reasonable but I just think my instinct tells me there is more to it in some cases.


Your instinct and experience.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> Q:　"what does the term leadership add to or detract from dog training"
> for me, just another subjective term i put in almost the same category as independence...irrelevant except maybe to describe dogs we've liked or not liked
> 
> i just finished 6 months boarding a 5 yr old WORKING line czech/belgium blk sable gsd ... a year ago when i took the leash from the owner it did a quick B/H/BITE and took a chunk out of my arm i could use to drink sake out of for the next few months :-(
> ...NOT an ankle biter and def a bit on the civil side, but a nice dog made a bit worse by being allowed to be pushy by a somewhat fearful owner
> 
> this summer owner wanted to switch to raw ... i say fine, we'll work on it here ... he sees me bring raw and shows me his beautiful teeth and snarls ... fast forward five months and he is destroying a drumstick on one end while i hold the other end, happy as a clam and wagging his tail while chowing down ...
> 
> ** leadership had nothing to do with this conditioning imo ... he just learned that snarling made his food go away and disappear
> - just one item of many he learned this summer ... operantly ... no clickers used btw
> 
> ... maybe a true pack "leader" would have spit on his food before giving it to him ?? //lol//
> ...i'm not a pack leader by any means //rotflmao//


And you don't think the one that controls the resources has nothing to do with pack leadership to the dog? What's the process from the snarl to holding onto the one of the drumstick happy as a clam. You left out a big chunk here.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And you don't think the one that controls the resources has nothing to do with pack leadership to the dog? What's the process from the snarl to holding onto the one of the drumstick happy as a clam. You left out a big chunk here.
> 
> T


I know you answered rick vs answering my post, but heres my .02 on your answer to Rick. I am looking forward to his. 


Terrasita and all others. This is not offered as advice for a novice. If your dog is growling over a bone, etc, go to a competent trainer, the internet will get you bit.... 

But, Operant conditioning, not leadership, is how you begin to manage this issue. You start with a low value item, and reward good behavior with a higher value item to throw. There are other factors to consider, IE environment, level of obedience, threshold for the behavior showing, but we do this with working dogs and pet dogs all the time. Dogs that won't out, value a fight, and won't release, or are poorly conditioned to out. Maybe not to the point of the resource guarding dog here, but same principle. 

get an idea though an interview when and why the behavior is showing itself. But, for the resource guarder, you set up training smart and controlled, start with a food bowl, empty but for two kernels of kibble. He eats, looks up, and you toss more in. Pretty soon, the dog sees you coming to the food with more food, not to take it. Gosh. Operant conditioning rewarding the non growling. not hocus pocus. You can progress this to high value item for high value item, and then on to variable reward mix in obedience. No free lunch. You simply time your reward with the response you want (positive reinforcement). If he doesn't offer a good behavior, you withhold the reward. Negative punishment. IE if the dog snarls after eating two kernels, you don't toss more, you wait for the good behavior, mark and reward. If the dog is horrible, you may start futher back and toss food to him in a contained (cage) environment when calm, then progress from there. You can do this though a fence or with the pet dog back tied to keep safe. You can toss food in one direction and then the other. Many variations. but please, don't try this at home without a competent trainer. 


It takes someone steady, and in control of their emotions and thoughtful in the setup of their training to work with this process. The handler and dog should always be safe in training, and the dog should always be more calm after training. 


*Operant conditioning. Taking the hocus pocus out of dog training one quadrant at a time.*


----------



## Sara Waters

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And you don't think the one that controls the resources has nothing to do with pack leadership to the dog? What's the process from the snarl to holding onto the one of the drumstick happy as a clam. You left out a big chunk here.
> 
> T


Thinking about it some more, I think that leadership and control of resources has a lot to do with it. No matter how you work with a dog and I prefer it to be a team affair with a built respect and shared outcome, but the one thing I know with my dogs is that I will always have the final call. I am one determined and strong person and I have personal boundaries and agendas. Personally I think a dog will recognise leadership, control of resources, I think in the end it is the relationship that you establish with the animal and the boundaries that you set. With some animals you have to recognise their ability to think laterally and encourage, I also like to encourage a sense of fun and quirkiness if it exists. Each animal is different and I think recognising personality and other traits needs to be factored in to each training program rather than treating the dog as a machine to be conditioned. leadership I think is just that, the ability to recognise and make the most of what you have.


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> I know you answered rick vs answering my post, but heres my .02 on your answer to Rick. I am looking forward to his.
> 
> 
> Terrasita and all others. This is not offered as advice for a novice. If your dog is growling over a bone, etc, go to a competent trainer, the internet will get you bit....
> 
> But, Operant conditioning, not leadership, is how you begin to manage this issue. You start with a low value item, and reward good behavior with a higher value item to throw. There are other factors to consider, IE environment, level of obedience, threshold for the behavior showing, but we do this with working dogs and pet dogs all the time. Dogs that won't out, value a fight, and won't release, or are poorly conditioned to out. Maybe not to the point of the resource guarding dog here, but same principle.
> 
> get an idea though an interview when and why the behavior is showing itself. But, for the resource guarder, you set up training smart and controlled, start with a food bowl, empty but for two kernels of kibble. He eats, looks up, and you toss more in. Pretty soon, the dog sees you coming to the food with more food, not to take it. Gosh. Operant conditioning rewarding the non growling. not hocus pocus. You can progress this to high value item for high value item, and then on to variable reward mix in obedience. No free lunch. You simply time your reward with the response you want (positive reinforcement). If he doesn't offer a good behavior, you withhold the reward. Negative punishment. IE if the dog snarls after eating two kernels, you don't toss more, you wait for the good behavior, mark and reward. If the dog is horrible, you may start futher back and toss food to him in a contained (cage) environment when calm, then progress from there. You can do this though a fence or with the pet dog back tied to keep safe. You can toss food in one direction and then the other. Many variations. but please, don't try this at home without a competent trainer.
> 
> 
> It takes someone steady, and in control of their emotions and thoughtful in the setup of their training to work with this process. The handler and dog should always be safe in training, and the dog should always be more calm after training.
> 
> 
> *Operant conditioning. Taking the hocus pocus out of dog training one quadrant at a time.*


I guess we are talking dogs that already have the problem. But how did they get there?. Was it poor leadership (training orwhatever) to begin with?. I have never had a problem with any of my dogs with resource guarding. I have never tolerated resource guarding. My BC pup came to me with the breeder saying with him it could be a potential problem. Well I dont know what I did specifically but it aint gonna happen on my turf. I control the resources and good behaviour is a ticket to those resources. I dont know if this is leadership or not but I just simply dont tolerate a lot of this crap and my dogs know it, I am calm, unemotional and resolute about the whole thing. I cant be bothered with trading items either, they either do what I want or not, their choice, my choice on release of reward/resource or not. Mind you it generally doesnt get to that point with my dogs.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Sara Waters said:


> I guess we are talking dogs that already have the problem. But how did they get there?. Was it poor leadership (training orwhatever) to begin with?. I have never had a problem with any of my dogs with resource guarding. I have never tolerated resource guarding. My BC pup came to me with the breeder saying with him it could be a potential problem. Well I dont know what I did specifically but it aint gonna happen on my turf. *I control the resources and good behaviour is a ticket to those resources. I dont know if this is leadership or not* but I just simply dont tolerate a lot of this crap and my dogs know it, I am calm, unemotional and resolute about the whole thing. I cant be bothered with trading items either, they either do what I want or not, their choice, my choice on release of reward/resource or not. Mind you it generally doesnt get to that point with my dogs.


 
Sara, now we get to it. My initial post was whether leadership is a good term to use in dog training. I think now, by your post here, I get it. You believe in operant conditioning, not leadership. Dogs are a science that people put an overlay of their heart on. I don't believe you do this, but I do believe "leadership" "respect" and a hundred other words absolutely take dog training off track and accomplish nothing but getting people hurt. If I hear respect, I think of a military officers rank. You give the rank respect, and the man under it earns it. But the respect is there.

Fair in your application of operant conditioning is more applicable and erases the emotion that goes along with other words. It's good training, and being a good human to an animal. It's what I believe we owe dogs and the humans that have them. 

Leadership. "It's just a word," people say. Also words... "Put the potato in the potato gun and shoot it." But to a man who thinks a rabbit is a potato, it may come across as cruel, when in reality potato shooting is a good time. And then what if the rabbit/potato guy shows his friends how to do it. Bam. Rabbit firing guns, and the world has changed. Words and their application are more dangerous than anything else on the planet.


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> Sara, now we get to it. My initial post was whether leadership is a good term to use in dog training. I think now, by your post here, I get it. You believe in operant conditioning, not leadership. Dogs are a science that people put an overlay of their heart on. I don't believe you do this, but I do believe "leadership" "respect" and a hundred other words absolutely take dog training off track and accomplish nothing but getting people hurt. If I hear respect, I think of a military officers rank. You give the rank respect, and the man under it earns it. But the respect is there.
> 
> Fair in your application of operant conditioning is more applicable and erases the emotion that goes along with other words. It's good training, and being a good human to an animal. It's what I believe we owe dogs and the humans that have them.
> 
> Leadership. "It's just a word," people say. Also words... "Put the potato in the potato gun and shoot it." But to a man who thinks a rabbit is a potato, it may come across as cruel, when in reality potato shooting is a good time. And then what if the rabbit/potato guy shows his friends how to do it. Bam. Rabbit firing guns, and the world has changed. Words and their application are more dangerous than anything else on the planet.


Yes I believe in operant conditioning which does allow the dog room to think and make choices, have never been a big fan of the word leadership, being somewhat of person who like to do my own thing, well not really a team player with other humans if I can avoid it.

But I still believe that dogs can operate at a level that doesnt just exist of conditioning. There are certain things that are not negotiable but I also recognise individuality and and lateral thinking where it exists and the different relationships I have had with different animals. There is an element of emotional overlay as I certainly would never get rid of any of my dogs if they dont work out as a super trialing or working dog. I work with what I have and learn to enjoy and try and bring out the best in what I have. 

Not sure about the rabbit analogy LOL although I know what you mean. Depends on how literally people take things and probably what their conditioning has been as to what their understanding of the context is.


----------



## maggie fraser

Dave Colborn said:


> You believe in operant conditioning, not leadership. Dogs are a science that people put an overlay of their heart on. I don't believe you do this, but I do believe "leadership" "respect" and a hundred other words absolutely take dog training off track and accomplish nothing but getting people hurt. If I hear respect, I think of a military officers rank. You give the rank respect, and the man under it earns it. But the respect is there.


I think that is quite a curious perspective ^^. I think I totally get what Sara is saying, and I don't think you are at all. When I've heard Bob mention the term leadership in the context he has, I do not think of a dog which follows behind etc. and it probably can't be separated easily from operant conditioning if at all, however that does not mean to say it is limited to operant conditioning only does it?

When I hear of the term respect, thinking of a military officers rank is probably the last thing I would think of, pretty sure I am not alone there. You never thought about thinking outside the box Dave? :smile: Respect to me is a quality, something which is inspired and earned and 'leadership' is a whole lot about relationship, at least to me. Leadership is not a term I have used, but I quite like when I hear for eg. Bob use it because I'm pretty sure I get what he is saying, as do many others I would think.

Back to your original question, 'leadership' probably isn't a terribly good term to use for some in dog training on account of it having no clear definition. I know when I hear of it in terms of that CM with the shiny white teeth,, makes me shudder.

Just a very humble opinion.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Is it a good term really depends on what it means to you or as Maggie says, how it is defined. For me it has nothing to do with correction or dominance. Nor that you have to revisit it if established and operant conditioning can facillitate establishing the dog/handler relationship--especially from the dog's point of view. I've had too many situations wherein I rely on the dog to read a situation and respond and never is every aspect of it trained and conditioned. There's the aspect of intelligence and analysis. Some have it and some don't. Herders refer to "intelligence disobedience." The dog disobeys the trained/rewarded conditioned response and does something else. If instinct and genetics are the catch all for non-trained responses then there is plenty of it in the herding department. Dogs are beyond being science lab rats. Some have an intuitiveness about their human handlers that is scary. Had an asthma episode where I was literally whistling as I was breathing. Khira was standing there cocking her head staring at me. Thereafter, I had several nights of her waking me up and I couldn't figure out why she was pawing at me. It finally dawned on me I was using my inhaler every time. After she woke me up I'd notice I was wheezing. But it still took me awhile to put it together. Did I train/condition that? I call a puppy and it doesn't come and heads to another room. The next thing I know the older dog has it by the collar pulling it toward the room I'm in. Trained/Conditioned? I know what I've situationally and trained and some dogs can separate the forest from the trees. I also know the things I don't have any sort of prior situation of reinforcement history on that the dog does on his own. For the first couple of years my dogs have a lot of structure and training applicable to my lifestyle and working livestock. After that around the house its like we mutually coexist. Everyone knows the routine and there is very little if any commands. Livestock training continues but at some point its a partnership, not a dictatorship. I have a huge amount of respect and regard for my dogs having the intelligence, sense and sheer guts to keep me safe and none of that is trained. When they reach that age of partnership I've had them add to what I command or do something completely different than what I command that accomplished what I was trying to do. Then there were the situations that I didn't have a clue about what to do or was worried about disaster and the dog acts and Wallah!!! Its probably why I don't get too bothered about disobedience and trial runs. As I've said before, I think we are the product of the experiences we have had with dogs.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> Q:　" but a nice dog made a bit worse by *being allowed to be pushy by a somewhat fearful owner *
> 
> ... maybe a true pack "leader" would have spit on his food before giving it to him ?? //lol//
> ...i'm not a pack leader by any means //rotflmao//


 
No the pack leader wouldn't have been afraid of him in the first place and he would know that eating is controlled by the pack leader.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> No the pack leader wouldn't have been afraid of him in the first place and he would know that eating is controlled by the pack leader.
> 
> T


Fear, paranoia and experience keep you alive and unhurt. Period. 

This is why I think I don't like the term leadership with dogs and training. It is usually followed by other incorrect information.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Had an asthma episode where I was literally whistling as I was breathing. Khira was standing there cocking her head staring at me. Thereafter, I had several nights of her waking me up and I couldn't figure out why she was pawing at me. It finally dawned on me I was using my inhaler every time. After she woke me up I'd notice I was wheezing. But it still took me awhile to put it together. Did I train/condition that?


Yes you did. I bet you'd find that you spoke softly to the dog or praised the dog after you woke. (Go on, tell us you were completely silent and didn't pet the dog) She chained the behavior together much like detection, when we add a sit with the odor. odor, verbal sit, pay. odor, verbal sit, pay.Pretty soon, the odor makes the dog sit. in your context. wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay. She then paired the wheezing with an impulsive behavior, and you may not see it with your stock dog experience, but dogs will offer behaviors to get rewarded. She just got more and more demanding until you woke and paid her. Bam. Much like a dog head butting you to get paid. Much like a fearful dog getting rewarded with "aww, whasamatter" and then not needing any fear stimulus to make him look fearful...


Next.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Is it a good term really depends on what it means to you or as Maggie says, how it is defined. For me it has nothing to do with correction or dominance. Nor that you have to revisit it if established and operant conditioning can facillitate establishing the dog/handler relationship--especially from the dog's point of view. I've had too many situations wherein I rely on the dog to read a situation and respond and never is every aspect of it trained and conditioned. There's the aspect of intelligence and analysis. Some have it and some don't. Herders refer to "intelligence disobedience." *The dog disobeys the trained/rewarded conditioned response and does something else.*


. 


Dogs aren't perfect. Maybe because you were leading vs. training, you didn't proof the competing motivation that your dog failed to perform a command while under. Or you simply didn't condition the behavior well enough and generalize it to enough areas. I can see why you might wish to look at a dogs behavior in this manner. Pet clients with issues can usually be heard making similar comments and excuses. The apparent difference between them and you from me dealing with them, and reading your post, is that they can understand how it might be their fault.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> I have been off the board for a while and I missed the cut and paste exchanges. Sorry that this doesn't read lou-long, but in tribute to him I did what I could.
> 
> 
> 
> Please note, that I mentioned genetics as well as conditioned response, above. I can look at a horses ass in a round pen and get them to turn into me and put their eyes on me. I can look at the fore end and get them to slow down and turn away from me while running in a round pen. Is that leadership, or conditioning of a response based on the animals genetic propensity to do things. Animals are just more sensitive to body language as they don't talk to each other. Dogs have eyes and are always watching us.
> 
> *Horses move off pressure and note different animals have different visual fields. If you've ever been in the stock pen with 100 sheep and a 12 inch dog, its a little more than about him watching me. *
> 
> Ask a detection trainer how many handlers cue their dogs by their body language, held breath, stopped talking change when the dog gets close to odor. They, and I, don't even know what we're doing sometimes, but a good detection trainer can see it a few steps away. The dog reads it exactly. This is why blind hides are paramount in detection.
> 
> *The work began with him on the back side of the gate holding the sheep and me at the gate singling them through. In the beginning this was enough because of the numbers. As the numbers became fewer it became harder to get the one I want. He had never done sorting with this many and I hadn't trained him to shed or single. He wasn't trained to figure out I wanted a particular sheep or conditioned to do single it from the flock and hold it to me. Hold a group to the gate--yes, part instinct, part training. As far as the shedding of a single and moving it to me for me to get through the gate--no prior training or reinforcement history for that. *
> 
> Because you haven't trained it, doesn't mean you didn't do it, and have the dog see it, thus them learning, when you weren't "teaching". This is why I stand by the statement about a dog learning if he is out of the crate. Let David Frost, Me, or Ariel Peldunas, or any trainer/handler that deals with detection dogs come watch you work stock a couple times. I bet one of us or maybe a poker player, could find your "tells". The benefit to you would you would then understand what you are doing when you get good results, vs. thinking it's something indescribeable. If you could figure that out, wouldn't you agree it takes you to a whole new level as a trainer?
> 
> *What motivates the dog on his own to contribute to the task? The dog knew that I was singling sheep through the gate with him holding the entire group to me. Rory could always see "the job." Sure he can tell from my mental focus on that sheep that its the one I wanted or am interested in. Its a couple extra steps for ohhhhh, I bet she wants me to shed that one, move it toward her and hold it as she opens the gate. The easiest way to get a dog to focus on his stock is for the handler to look at the stock. This is a dog that could certainly separate the forest from the trees which is my point. I didn't need to do it for him. With lots of dogs, you can have all the tells you want, doesn't mean they will formulate/implement a plan of action.*
> 
> From a single head of stock in the beginning, you probably have a location on the animal that you look when you are teaching the dog to move the stock. Don't suppose a dog might remember that. or the area you are facing like a dog doing a directional send. They can read us precisely and do when rewarded and corrected.
> 
> *Boy are you grasping at straws. Initially with all this I can't see the dog and he can't see me. You're talking at least 130 head in a 70 foot lot pen. Nor do I have a location on the animal that I look when the dog is moving stock. I don't need to look at the stock. That's his genetics and instincts--gather, keep group together and move them--either toward me or away from him on the line of travel that I set.*
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly? I bet I can piece together enough parts that the dog can chain it together with some genetic help (I don't think you'll get a french bulldog to herd, is what I am saying). Get a well selected dog, and training and genetics will carry it.
> 
> *Lots of genetics and his commitment to what he saw as the overall job.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First sentence good genetics, coupled with training. Second sentence dogs will stand up to another dog, why wouldn't you suspect that they'd to it to a prey animal without training. Some dogs will even stand up to a man with no prior training. That was just good dog selection on your part, that he protected you, not leadership.
> 
> *I wasn't talking about leadership. This is the untrained instinctual aspect of the work--defense of pack/handler. Dogs standing up to another dog have absolutely nothing to do with standing up to 1000 or 200 pound animal that will bash their brains in. This isn't about prey. Prey moves away not toward. That man sentence coming from you is interesting. Thought you thought to the contrary.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Bob must have really whipped a dog at some point to have such a strong connection between leadership and correction. (JK sort of, but it isn't a big part of leadership that I know) I hadn't mentioned correction til Bob brought it up. If I believed in leadership in animals, I would believe in it more like the strong leaders I have had. They were smarter and stronger than one who needs to correct. Although they could and did, it wasn't primary or often.
> 
> *Leadership and respect don't have anything to do with correction or force. I've never whipped a dog in my life. I also select for a fair amount of dominance and they are a tad independent by some folks standards. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the leadership thing didn't work for them. That's a point for my team. Let's now treat the dogs as if they are dogs, and we are humans. We have thumbs and are higher up the food chain... You teach the dog a place command and a recall for them. Show them how to be consistent and explain operant conditioning and why it works. The place command will sort out most bad behavior as the dog isn't allowed to move from the place other than when conditioned to. You can use marker training for this, but I would plan on backing it up with correction at some point.
> 
> *Actually its not a point for your team it just means you have an individual that the dog doesn't respect. Marker training can work with the ones that don't say screw it, you don't have a reward high enough and correction can work for the ones that don't say screw the correction. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This supports my idea that Leadership is Hooey. And yes, that was Hooey with a capital H. The dog in your scenario is *conditioned *not to listen to the owner. I have seen this multiple times. I take the lead. Reward. Bam, I have an attentive pupil. Worse or different dogs in different situations, one correction, same thing. I have begun to condition the response. This is the reason in-board training works better for dogs with very conditioned bad behavior, than the owner teaching OB themselves. All the bad things the dog is conditioned to, the environment, the owner, repeated commands, inconsistency, all gone when they go to a facility to be trained. On that note, this is why problem behaviors are so hard to fix sometimes, because you aren't training a behavior, you are counter conditioning a bad one. Which is also why training mutually exclusive behaviors is better than attacking some problems. IE a dog that rebites after an out. If possible for whatever work you are doing, teach him a recall from the bite. The behavior of returning to the handler is mutually exclusive to the rebite behavior. Can't do both at the same time.
> 
> Although it's nice to think we are natural leaders with dogs, and this may feed our ego, we are just better trainers than our non dog training friends and we should be as this is our passion.


*Who said anything about natural leaders. I don't think you have effective training without leadership and you don't need correction to necessarily get it. But to each's own.*

*T*


----------



## Dave Colborn

maggie fraser said:


> I think that is quite a curious perspective ^^. I think I totally get what Sara is saying, and I don't think you are at all. When I've heard Bob mention the term leadership in the context he has, I do not think of a dog which follows behind etc. and it probably can't be separated easily from operant conditioning if at all, however that does not mean to say it is limited to operant conditioning only does it?
> 
> When I hear of the term respect, thinking of a military officers rank is probably the last thing I would think of, pretty sure I am not alone there. You never thought about thinking outside the box Dave? :smile: Respect to me is a quality, something which is inspired and earned and 'leadership' is a whole lot about relationship, at least to me. Leadership is not a term I have used, but I quite like when I hear for eg. Bob use it because I'm pretty sure I get what he is saying, as do many others I would think.
> 
> Back to your original question, 'leadership' probably isn't a terribly good term to use for some in dog training on account of it having no clear definition. I know when I hear of it in terms of that CM with the shiny white teeth,, makes me shudder.
> 
> Just a very humble opinion.


I think your comment that leadership probably isn't a good term is an agreement with what I am saying. I understand you aren't on board with dogs are all operant conditioning and genetics, I can live comfortably there with you. But no one has proved or tried to define leadership yet. I want someone to sway my opinion. 

You also mentioned that you don't think I get what Sarah is saying. I may or may not, but do you get what I am saying? If you and Sarah have similar beliefs, you should be trying to figure out what mine are and sway my opinion, while supporting each others. Several people on this thread have mentioned how correction and heavy handed are not a part of leadership. I never even mentioned it. Terrasita goes as far as to define leadership immediately with what it is not, not what it is to her. What is that?


----------



## maggie fraser

Dave Colborn said:


> I think your comment that leadership probably isn't a good term is an agreement with what I am saying. I understand you aren't on board with dogs are all operant conditioning and genetics, I can live comfortably there with you. But no one has proved or tried to define leadership yet. I want someone to sway my opinion.
> 
> You also mentioned that you don't think I get what Sarah is saying. I may or may not, but do you get what I am saying? If you and Sarah have similar beliefs, you should be trying to figure out what mine are and sway my opinion, while supporting each others. Several people on this thread have mentioned how correction and heavy handed are not a part of leadership. I never even mentioned it. Terrasita goes as far as to define leadership immediately with what it is not, not what it is to her. What is that?


Yes, I am in agreement that the term leadership is probably not overly useful to a lot of people in dog training, and the use of physical correction or not hasn't really entered my mind on this subject either. I have been trying to ascertain if you are of the belief that dogs are all operant conditioning and genetics ? How about rats, are you of the belief they are all operant conditioning and genetics?

I am enjoying the discussion here, it is thought provoking and worthy of exploration. As far as I am aware, there is really no universally agreed definition on precisely what leadership is, therefore much of the contribution is going to be pretty subjective. Different things to different people.


----------



## Nicole Stark

maggie fraser said:


> Different things to different people.


Which reminds me... I think something similar was also stated within the drive thread. I can embrace that idea but I am not sure I find myself doing so with a great deal of acceptance.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> *Who said anything about natural leaders. I don't think you have effective training without leadership and you don't need correction to necessarily get it. But to each's own.*
> 
> *T*


So far, I am not finding any answers in your writing, and you don't seem to understand what I am saying. IE the horse example. Horses can pick up where we are looking at a run, because eyes ears and body language are how they communicate. Dogs are similarly proficient at picking up our tells. That's all I was saying, and you had to type more to agree. Then you disagree that dogs can do it. 

How about explaining how a dog works his first head of stock. Not the 130, unless that's how start them. 

As far as dogs naturally protecting, some will. Don's won't. Happily he is on a road to getting his dogs in better shape, videos of rag work, etc would lead me to this conclusion. For all his disdain of new training, etc, he is trying new things. I have hopes for you much like him. Although there may be little visible communication between us, in the end, you will hear what I and others like me are saying, make it your own idea, and press on with life more knowledgeable than you started. We can hope.


----------



## maggie fraser

Nicole Stark said:


> Which reminds me... I think something similar was also stated within the drive thread. I can embrace that idea but I am not sure I find myself doing so with a great deal of acceptance.


I'm not overly comfortable with that either I suppose but I'm thinking if we aren't at this stage agreeing really what respect is, it's going to be quite difficult.


----------



## Joby Becker

I think the term is way overused.

I guess it matters how it is used though.

When I think of leadership

I think of the way a person manages whatever it is.

So good leadership in regards to owning a dog would be to me, good management of the time, the resources, the training, the activities.

effectively training and motivating the dog to achieve whatever goals you have, effectively putting an end to counterproductive behaviors, and fostering whatever type of working relationship you have..kinda of like you are running a company that houses and provides everything for the employee, and the dog is the employee.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Hey Maggie since an aspect of my profession requires/expects leadership, I'd rather not see the term applied in a training context. Here, based upon how I have seen it used by others, I understand it to loosely mean a systematic application of rules, guidelines, and perhaps at times consequences that is applied justly and with consistency. This in turn has a relatively predictable influence over the general order and outcome of things.

Keep in mind, I did not comment on that to justify the position that "leadership" necessarily plays an independent role in the context that it is being questioned. I believe it's a matter of translation. Compartmentalizing if you will, in a way that makes sense in the minds of others. 

I am just as guilty of this, I cannot tell you the number of times I heard something that I either didn't agree with or fully understand. But, I kept listening and looking for a way to understand it and once stated using lanugage that was more familiar to me, the explanation was as clear as if I had said it myself.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Joby Becker said:


> So good leadership in regards to owning a dog would be to me, good management of the time, the resources, the training, the activities.
> 
> effectively training and motivating the dog to achieve whatever goals you have, effectively putting an end to counterproductive behaviors, and fostering whatever type of working relationship you have..kinda of like you are running a company that houses and provides everything for the employee, and the dog is the employee.


 
I like this. The leadership is the what, and the conditioning would be the how. Thanks Joby. I don't think I'll preach pack leadership, ever, but I can get behind what you said here.


----------



## Dave Colborn

maggie fraser said:


> I'm not overly comfortable with that either I suppose but I'm thinking if we aren't at this stage agreeing really what respect is, it's going to be quite difficult.


Maybe everyone agrees, but our lack of understanding of others' terms is causing the issue. I respect you for your post, maggie!!


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> I like this. The leadership is the what, and the conditioning would be the how. Thanks Joby. I don't think I'll preach pack leadership, ever, but I can get behind what you said here.


 
I think leadership to me is assessing the personalities, genetics, instincts, baggage, body structures that I am working with. I look at what my working requirements are for my business and also my trialing requirements which I do for fun. I also think about what I want from a relationship with my dogs. I factor in the non negotiable basic behaviour that I require for travelling and trialing. I then work with what I have to approximately achieve what I want. I have to manage through any curve balls and maybe reassess training strategies as certain traits or personalities come to light as dogs grow in experience in working with you and different relationships develop. 

With herding dogs a lot of what you need is often a function of genetics and if you have a good dog the role you play is to attach meaning and context to those instincts so the dog learns by experience how to use those instincts in a useful way and in many cases make independent decisions. This a function of inherited traits, your ability as a trainer and the dogs intelligence and ability to problem solve using the context that it has learned. 

A dogs first experience on sheep you get a first look at the dogs instinct and traits. The dog at that stage has no context. You then work with the dog to develop context. It does go beyond pure conditioning of that I am sure. If a dog is lacking in some traits you can condition on the shortfalls but this will often unravel under pressure and dog will often revert unless you micromanage it. So breeding is pretty important here. If the traits are then you can then concentrate on building the context.

Watching a well know old stockman (in his eighties) and his top sheepdog working sheep once, there was a working partnership there between a man and his dog that was beautiful to watch both at work and at rest. I suspect he would most defintely disagree that his dog is acting purely via conditioning

So this is where we are going to differ. Conditioning is an imprtant some of the how but it isnt all the how. That is my opinion anyway and not really meant to sway you. Is there really hard scientific evidence on this topic or is it mainly an interpretation of our experiences and the studies that already exist?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> So far, I am not finding any answers in your writing, and you don't seem to understand what I am saying. IE the horse example. Horses can pick up where we are looking at a run, because eyes ears and body language are how they communicate. Dogs are similarly proficient at picking up our tells. That's all I was saying, and you had to type more to agree. Then you disagree that dogs can do it.
> 
> How about explaining how a dog works his first head of stock. Not the 130, unless that's how start them.
> 
> As far as dogs naturally protecting, some will. Don's won't. Happily he is on a road to getting his dogs in better shape, videos of rag work, etc would lead me to this conclusion. For all his disdain of new training, etc, he is trying new things. I have hopes for you much like him. Although there may be little visible communication between us, in the end, you will hear what I and others like me are saying, make it your own idea, and press on with life more knowledgeable than you started. We can hope.


You don't really understand dog/livestock interaction and no amount of explaining will help because this is argument for the sake of argument for you and to justify your opinions. You first talk about how you make the horse move and now its about "where we are looking at a run" which I have no idea what you are talking about. Horses are probably the most intuitive and I don't believe for a minute just like with dogs, its all about what they visualize or what you train oprantly.. Yes dogs can pick up certain things but its what they decide to do about them and whether its an independent decision or that trained conditioned response you keep insisting on. You won't find any answers because you don't want to. Sarah and I both employ operant conditioning. We just disagree with your point of view that the dog's performance is only a result of trained conditioned responses except for that vague catch all--genetics which encompasses behaviors even you can't ascribe to training.

Dogs generally work the flock--regardless of numbers, as a group. Its not about him working the first head. But I'm not really sure what you mean by that. They are not just responding to the dog based on him being within their sight or field of vision. It takes tad more than that depending on what you are dealing with. If he is driving and he is locked on the lead head then he is controlling him with body position and eye/mental pressure. Meanwhile he is positioned and pressuring the group in the same manner. He has to control the lead and the rest of the flock simultaneously. Its his movement and his mental pressure that will keep that group grouped and moving in the line of travel that he desires. If I work him on a single head, its still position and mental pressure. Generally, within that group/flock, there is a leader and the dog will know who it is because he has to make his point with him and then the others will follow along so to speak. At times movement alone won't move stock at all. That's when you find out whether the dog is weak or nervy. Then its all about mental pressure and then possibily physical pressure added in. Its not the prey game that you think it is. Stock work is the same combination of prey, defense and fight. Next we like that degree of intelligence, analysis and commitment to the overall job.

He, who? Turnipseed? You really are funny. He lives in the dark ages, not I. How his dogs performed that day was more about age and his personally teaching them about man pressure than you. All you have to do is read all his posts about his corrective interactions with those dogs. I've been using operant conditioning and particularly positive reinforcment with livestock and other training for years. I rarely venture down the road of correction. I find it quite useless in teaching a behavior. I'm not as limited as you in the thought that only operant conditioning is at work in terms of why a dog does what he does. I'm not that arrogant to think that everything that my dog does in his life is due to something that I have trained/conditioned. I'm not that much of a control freak for one and I depend on the dog for his intelligence, sense of pack, genetic herding ability and confidence to do what I do and many aspects of that I don't train/condition. The dog either has it or he doesn't. The training you discuss isn't anything know as its discussion dates back to the early 1900s. I'm creative enough to employ it where I can use it without being completelly single minded in what is at play with the dog's perceptions. My dogs live with me and probably know my life habits better than I do. All the stuff you are referring to is more like elementary, Watson. I don't have those Ceasar Milan show type issues. But there are those that need to spend the big bucks on the behaviorist consults. The leadership aspect of the relationship isn't useful because if they understand it and FELT it, they wouldn't have to hire you and Rick. So you have to back door it with all the the operant scenarios like trading and if it works, hopefully they will keep the dog. But I bet you get some returns when that dog calls the training bluff. Because at the end of the day you and Rick are sending a message to that pooch that goes beyond and perhaps enhances the operant training. But you keep hoping that others will find your opinions new and genius. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> I think the term is way overused.
> 
> I guess it matters how it is used though.
> 
> When I think of leadership
> 
> I think of the way a person manages whatever it is.
> 
> So good leadership in regards to owning a dog would be to me, good management of the time, the resources, the training, the activities.
> 
> effectively training and motivating the dog to achieve whatever goals you have, effectively putting an end to counterproductive behaviors, and fostering whatever type of working relationship you have..kinda of like you are running a company that houses and provides everything for the employee, and the dog is the employee.


 
I decided to scrap everything I had done with a dog's livestock training and start over. So I put a group of stock in a very small pen with the idea that I was going to capture something and mark it. Well she never did what I was looking for because quite frankly she didn't have that motor pattern. I don't know after what seem like eons of her just moving the stock around and around, she finally stopped and looked up at me with the "uhhhhh, is there a plan," look. So much for free shaping and the dog will work on his own if given the opportunity. So I set up an obvious "job," which she couldn't do without the motor pattern that I needed, captured/marked and that was the beginning of putting three different speeds in her and finally getting pace. Defining the job is certainly a part of that leadership relationship along with an established code of conduct in performing it. But that also encompasses training/conditioning.

One thing I would add is those of us that ascribe to the leadership concept, don't spend that much time on it. This is something that is established early on in the relationship and you don't really have to revisit it if you established it in the first place. You move on the training and developing the dog.

T


----------



## Sara Waters

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Yes dogs can pick up certain things but its what they decide to do about them and whether its an independent decision or that trained conditioned response you keep insisting on.
> 
> Dogs generally work the flock--regardless of numbers, as a group. Its not about him working the first head. But I'm not really sure what you mean by that. They are not just responding to the dog based on him being within their sight or field of vision. It takes tad more than that depending on what you are dealing with. If he is driving and he is locked on the lead head then he is controlling him with body position and eye/mental pressure. Meanwhile he is positioned and pressuring the group in the same manner. He has to control the lead and the rest of the flock simultaneously. Its his movement and his mental pressure that will keep that group grouped and moving in the line of travel that he desires.
> 
> The leadership aspect of the relationship isn't useful because if they understand it and FELT it, they wouldn't have to hire you and Rick. So you have to back door it with all the the operant scenarios like trading and if it works, hopefully they will keep the dog.
> T


Yes dogs will do precisely this, they are experts at identifying both trouble makers and the lead animals. They will keep their eye on the lead sheep and will concentrate on making a point with this animal if they need to. They will enforce their own regime of reward and punishment on this animal if required. 

Moving some stock can be a real test of the dogs ability and you could never possibly condition for all the combinations that you will face. This is where a good dog is worth its weight. You can condition an inferior dog till the cows come home and it will never be as reliable as the dog that has the natural ability to analyse a situation and come up with the right answer independently of the handler more often than not. 

Farmers sometimes have to move large numbers of sheep across and along side an interstate trucking route. Only the dogs with the best natural ability are used for this task or it quickly becomes a debacle. They work stretched over several kilometres working independently, sorting out sheep among trucks trying to get through, dodging idiot car drivers and keeping tabs on sheep running in all directions on the highway as impatient vehickes force their way through, dealing with stragglers and spooked sheep trying to run back the other way, and keeping the mob all moving towards the intended paddock where the farmer is often dealing with the gate and acting as a point to where the dogs are working. 

There are sometimes several dogs working together which can also be a debacle if the dogs are not in tune with each other. I never fail to be impressed on the occassions that I witness this. Farmers dont spend a great deal of time training their working dogs, they often have to learn on the run and it soon sorts them out.

Yes I also agree that I never ponder on leadership because it is implicit in the relationship I have with my animals.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Sara Waters said:


> Moving some stock can be a real test of the dogs ability and you could never possibly condition for all the combinations that you will face. This is where a good dog is worth its weight. You can condition an inferior dog till the cows come home and it will never be as reliable as the dog that has the natural ability to analyse a situation and come up with the right answer independently of the handler more often than not.


Not that you were intending for a separation to occur, but it seems to me that this statement or collection of statements could be applied to just about any working dog application. I just mean that herding doesn't necessarily make this any more or less true.


----------



## rick smith

since you mentioned my name ....
1. i don't see how subscribing to OC is a measure of arrogance ..
1(a) .....nor do i consider my methods of training new or genius ... that WOULD be arrogant //rotflmao//

2. could it also be that "my dogs don't need OC because they are well bred "stock dogs" and have a special relationship with me and the stock and work within the boundaries and limitations i have set ", might also be interpreted as a bit "arrogant", not to mention a bit Cesar like ? 
... i know, i'm putting xtra words in your mouth //lol//

3. i have a Ja bud who has worked BC's for years on stock ... interesting guy ... knows his dogs well
- we have had a lot of conversations about if/how OC applies to animals. i discuss dogs and dolphins using my background experiences and he discusses his BC's working stock ... he has a lot of strange ways he measures how good his dogs are that i find strange and a bit illogical ... like how he can look into a dogs eye's to judge their character 
- he also says his good dogs are born not trained, and how "intelligent" they are because they are so aware of the subtle way stock move and how his dogs can control them with minimal physical effort, and all they need is his gentle experienced leadership, etc 
- simply put, he is a shepherd, not a dog trainer ... different occupation and mind set to me and we usually end up with the apples and oranges stalemate 

4. funny, but the way you are explaining things makes this thread seem like the old school Harley mindset that "if i have to explain it ... never mind" 

but to start talking in terms of arrogance and "only stupid people need trainers" is taking it to the extreme imo


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> . Sarah and I both employ operant conditioning. We just disagree with your point of view that the dog's performance is only a result of trained conditioned responses except for that vague catch all--genetics which encompasses behaviors even you can't ascribe to training.T


OK. so you and Sarah do it, and it's ok. Rick and I do it, and it's trying to make someone think it's something new and great? Really I am saying operant conditioning is there, leadership is not. I agreed with Joby on some of his definition of leadership. Don't be so quick to disagree, when you actually agree. Also, please don't be quick to lump yourself with Sarah. She represents herself well in an argument.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> . The leadership aspect of the relationship isn't useful because if they understand it and FELT it, they wouldn't have to hire you and Rick.T


Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*  
_I've tried working with a couple of friends of mine in discussing the leadership aspect and bottom line is they can't fake it. One is having pack chaos as the moment. Its obvious her dogs think they can push her around--literally._

Doesnt look like they come to just me or Rick or the hundred other trainers to find out how to use operant conditioning to fix things. They come to you and you blame them vs. teaching how to get control. We provide a solution, because they lack knowledge. I don't think her dogs are pushing her around, I think she needs help training her dogs. It's the stance of someone who isn't a victim. How to be part of the solution vs. part of the problem. I can't tell you how many smart people learn to train their dogs using operant conditioning. Their first step is realizing they have a problem and then seeking help.... May want to take note of that. How would you get control of the pack??




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> . So you have to back door it with all the the operant scenarios like trading and if it works, hopefully they will keep the dog. T


Did you say ack door a behavior with science, when you are selling an idea you can't explain with "leadership"? Did I read that wrong? If you think of some scenarios and include them in YOUR training, maybe your "intelligence disobedience" percentage of mistakes will go down.

I understand from your post above and below what the root problem is. Other people are stupid in your opinion, and you are not. Me included, in your opinion. Got it. If we (anyone but you) has a training issue with a dog, it can be any number of stupid related things that we are doing. Everyone has this, stupid ability, in your eyes....but.....when your dog does something wrong it's "intelligence disobedience." not a lack of training and proofing. I think you lack real understanding of training, or just have to win an argument at the cost of looking ignorant. Are you some form of a CPDT, by chance?? I have met a bunch, and a few have been very good dog trainers, just curious if you are one or not. 

Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*  
_Is it a good term really depends on what it means to you or as Maggie says, how it is defined. For me it has nothing to do with correction or dominance. Nor that you have to revisit it if established and operant conditioning can facillitate establishing the dog/handler relationship--especially from the dog's point of view. I've had too many situations wherein I rely on the dog to read a situation and respond and never is every aspect of it trained and conditioned. There's the aspect of intelligence and analysis. Some have it and some don't. Herders refer to "intelligence disobedience." *The dog disobeys the trained/rewarded conditioned response and does something else.*_

Sounds as the dog is "calling your bluff" (please read, wasn't conditioned properly around competing motivations with your training).


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> One thing I would add is those of us that ascribe to the leadership concept, don't spend that much time on it. This is something that is established early on in the relationship and you don't really have to revisit it if you established it in the first place. You move on the training and developing the dog.
> 
> T


OK. Got it. Can you explain how you establish leadership with a 6 month old rescue that was born and lived in a kennel, is aloof, with no other visible issues, but very untrained. Jumping. Mouthy. Won't walk on a leash. Runs to the hills if you let him off leash. Male. Neutered. Blue eyes. A border collie mix. Named....hmmm....Bill. Here's your chance to pass on leadership training 101 for the sake of discussion.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> since you mentioned my name ....
> 1. i don't see how subscribing to OC is a measure of arrogance ..
> 1(a) .....nor do i consider my methods of training new or genius ... that WOULD be arrogant //rotflmao//
> 
> *Wasn't talking about you in regard to this at all.*
> 
> 2. could it also be that "my dogs don't need OC because they are well bred "stock dogs" and have a special relationship with me and the stock and work within the boundaries and limitations i have set ", might also be interpreted as a bit "arrogant", not to mention a bit Cesar like ?
> ... i know, i'm putting xtra words in your mouth //lol//
> 
> *I think this is Sara's, not mine. The dogs do work within the boundaries and limitations set by the handler though--most of the time. I'm sure its not meant to be Cesar like. I think that's the main problem. Any mention of pack or leadership and everyone leaps to Milan and dominance conditioning. The type of relationship that I have with my dogs doesn't encompass 100 % compliance or robotics, at all. *
> 
> 3. i have a Ja bud who has worked BC's for years on stock ... interesting guy ... knows his dogs well
> - we have had a lot of conversations about if/how OC applies to animals. i discuss dogs and dolphins using my background experiences and he discusses his BC's working stock ... he has a lot of strange ways he measures how good his dogs are that i find strange and a bit illogical ... like how he can look into a dogs eye's to judge their character
> - he also says his good dogs are born not trained, and how "intelligent" they are because they are so aware of the subtle way stock move and how his dogs can control them with minimal physical effort, and all they need is his gentle experienced leadership, etc
> - simply put, he is a shepherd, not a dog trainer ... different occupation and mind set to me and we usually end up with the apples and oranges stalemate
> 
> *Yeah, BCs are bred for handler responsiveness in away the others aren't except for some GSDs. I've learned to use OC to get what I want instead of old school pressure/release training which is a huge part of old school BC training.*
> 
> 4. funny, but the way you are explaining things makes this thread seem like the old school Harley mindset that "if i have to explain it ... never mind"
> 
> but to start talking in terms of arrogance and "only stupid people need trainers" is taking it to the extreme imo


* I didn't say only stupid people need trainers. The reference was to those who have difficulty establishing leadership and need guidance with alternative OC methods. That doesn't make them stupid. Some are afraid and some don't have the personality that lends itself to the leadership role. Just makes them different and maybe they should have a different type of dog. Funny thing is the very ones that say they aren't comfortable with leadership like the dogs that need the most leadership. Bonnie Bergin actually did some type of book on matching the right dog/breed to the right personality based on things like ability or desire to lead. I like to talk to certain other trainers for second opinions all the time. Actually was doing that last night. Some times I agree. Some times I don't and I'm sure its the same for them. We love to discuss and no one gets their panties or shorts in a snitch if we disagree.*


----------



## Sara Waters

Nicole Stark said:


> Not that you were intending for a separation to occur, but it seems to me that this statement or collection of statements could be applied to just about any working dog application. I just mean that herding doesn't necessarily make this any more or less true.


Absolutely, my experience with working dogs is with stock dogs, so I use this as I have no level of authority on other breeds other than collies (BC, kelpies etc) and Australian cattle dogs.

A good stock dog can be bred with the traits that you require to do a task and I expect this is true of other working breeds. This is the skill in breeding. It requires very good knowledge and something I would not even begin to attempt. Knowing what I know now I will be very selective with the breeders I choose, but also realise that the ability to get the best out of any dog rests squarely with the handler.

There was some statement made in a previous post that someone attached my name to that wasnt entirely correct.

I belive that a well bred stock dog will have the traits that are required to handle stock. The skill of the handler lies in the ability to put commands on these traits and to teach the dog context. Long term partnerships between these dogs and their shepherds are often a thing of beauty to watch. There is no arrogance in that it is simply fact as I see it. I doubt if they have even heard of the words operant conditioning. They can read stock, read their dogs and understand how to turn these traits into something that is very valuable. I expect that they would consider themselves both partners with and leaders of their dogs.

I have a rescue working bred sheepdog that I rescued at 7 months old from a city home whose only way to try and control him was to abuse him because they had no idea how to deal with 2 high drive pups they had picked up from a farm.

I most certainly used operant conditioning with him, which I do with all my dogs when I train agility and obedience or box and perch work and also lots of walks and gentle handling to gain his trust. 

I decided to try him on sheep and initially he had no idea what to do so I let him watch me working my other dogs for a few times. Next time I tried him he was flanking, balancing to me and I realised I had something I could work with. There was no operant conditioning involved in that first go and I dont use it so much when I am working with inherited traits. Possibly I work the old way with the use of pressure and body position. I havent given it much thought really. 

So I use operant conditioning and reinforcement with toys and food with agility, obedience and general behaviour. I use pressure, body position, verbal praise when I work stock. If the dog lacks certain traits I then have to teach them but will most likely use pressure to show the dog for example to give the sheep more width (I wave the dog off with my arm) and I use the basic commands that I have taught operantly in general training, like lie down, heel etc.

With a fear aggressive dog once I took on I use desensitisation, counter conditioning, operant conditioning to achieve results, but I also had to be aware that such a dog also had a gentic weakness evident in her line, so I would never rely on pure conditioning to keep her safe, I had to learn how to read her. Dogs will also recognise your strength (not just physical) and character as a handler which possibly borders on recognising leadership. I think this will play a part in handling any dog but very much in rehabbing difficult dogs and will go hand in hand with operant conditioning not in lieu of it.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Sara Waters said:


> I most certainly used operant conditioning with him, which I do with all my dogs when I train agility and obedience or box and perch work and also lots of walks and gentle handling to gain his trust.
> 
> I decided to try him on sheep and initially he had no idea what to do so I let him watch me working my other dogs for a few times. Next time I tried him he was flanking, balancing to me and I realised I had something I could work with. There was no operant conditioning involved in that first go and I dont use it so much when I am working with inherited traits. Possibly I work the old way with the use of pressure and body position. I havent given it much thought really.


Just so you know, I am getting some good stuff out of what you are writing. I disagree with the term leadership as applied to dogs (you may have noticed) because it confuses the issue of training among people talking about training, and most leadership can be pared down to operant conditioning in most cases. I like what Joby said to define leadership. It basically gives you the power to use operant conditioning, classical conditioning, mimmicry, or whatever when you interact with your dog. I say whatever, because although I haven't found anything that I can't explain away to operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and mimicry, I am sure willing to keep looking.

I like your comment of the shepherd that can do it, but couldn't explain it. There is a lot to be realized in that comment. When I was in kuwait, I saw a bunch of kids that would herd goats next to the road with a dog, as the moisture would stay next to the ditches in the road longer (as well as the trash the goats could eat) and only saw a few accidents. Nothing is perfect, but they would run them up and down the roads day after day. Takes a good dog, however you judge it.

Taking emotion out of dog training, but not passion, I believe yeilds better results. As dog men and women, we have an obligation to dogs to get knowledge out there, and I believe conditioning is black and white, and leadership is just conditioning. 

Happy Herding!!!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. so you and Sarah do it, and it's ok. Rick and I do it, and it's trying to make someone think it's something new and great? Really I am saying operant conditioning is there, leadership is not. I agreed with Joby on some of his definition of leadership. Don't be so quick to disagree, when you actually agree. Also, please don't be quick to lump yourself with Sarah. She represents herself well in an argument.
> 
> *Lord help you, you do go on don't you. You wrongfully assumed by the mention of leadership that Sara and I weren't involved in operant conditioning. If you believe leadership isn't there---OKAY. I disagree and we'll have to leave it at that. Now you agree there is some aspect of leadership. I believe that BOTH are involved and one complements the other.*
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*
> _I've tried working with a couple of friends of mine in discussing the leadership aspect and bottom line is they can't fake it. One is having pack chaos as the moment. Its obvious her dogs think they can push her around--literally._
> 
> Doesnt look like they come to just me or Rick or the hundred other trainers to find out how to use operant conditioning to fix things. They come to you and you blame them vs. teaching how to get control. We provide a solution, because they lack knowledge. I don't think her dogs are pushing her around, I think she needs help training her dogs. It's the stance of someone who isn't a victim. How to be part of the solution vs. part of the problem. I can't tell you how many smart people learn to train their dogs using operant conditioning. Their first step is realizing they have a problem and then seeking help.... May want to take note of that. How would you get control of the pack??
> 
> *Yep, I've taught herding seminars and guess what makes me different--how to use positive reinforcement and even external rewards in training a stock dog. I also do what I like to refer to as lead a local training group. That friend of mine and I are raising/training a litter to get a handle on the genetics and to begin a future breeding project. Yes, the dogs are literally pushing her around. She's passive--no presence. You see it also when I have her move stock. That might get a little deep. With her bitch, it was basically screw positive reinforcement when certain stimuli was involved. There was so much take the work away you minds well say you are never going to train her. She didn't connect the dots. Finally, absolute NILIF. Had thought she was doing this but she was doing it half ass feeling sorry for the dog. The dog has made some major strides in the right direction. Keep in mind she is age 5 which is when they partner up so that has helps. The problem is really one of the 13 month olds. He's not that much dog at all but you watch him with her and he really does think he runs it. Basically, he resorts to body slamming her when he wants something. If that doesn't get it and you keep him from what he wants, he can go to some sort of aggression display. I think he is pretty well past that. But he's only doing it because he think he can. I call him a weak wanna be dominant. Not difficult to fix if she quits thinking "poor baby." Really worked him and my bitch Khyndra last week on sheep and it was interesting how it changed them--more biddable, more pack-like. Khyndra is also a wanna be but I've implemented certain things to check her--work last, eat last, come in, last, go out last, etc., etc. These are the types of things that reinforce to the dog he is a subordinate--ala Bill Campbell. Every time she thought she'd do the body slam, we'd do down stay trainning. Now she comes barreling at me and suddenly throws herself to the ground instead or racing past. The difference is I have a lot of patience and I don't feel sorry for them. Trust me, I have a zillioon operant scenario gimmicks depending on what I want to do. I don't do bite the hand that feeds you and I'm not trading. I don't do dog fights. Don't try to over run and beat me through a door. Lastly, my kid is god and every dog had better recognize that. Oh yeah, don't run cows at me. Other than those things we can do lots of cookie operant training.*
> 
> Did you say ack door a behavior with science, when you are selling an idea you can't explain with "leadership"? Did I read that wrong? If you think of some scenarios and include them in YOUR training, maybe your "intelligence disobedience" percentage of mistakes will go down.
> 
> *Keep trying. Intelligence disobedience isn't a mistake. The situation changed to warrant the disobedience. Maybe the dog saw it and I didn't. Some people ascribe to the dog should do what its told regardless. I don't.* *Once again you ASSUME I don't have my own operant scenarios in training. 2 months ago I leash broke a duck to work on a dog's confidence in the pocket so I could set it up to get the behavior and mark it. This was never about operant training scenarios but about your statement that its always operant training/condition, never leadership and what the dog does is what trained conditioned absent some genetic qualities. *
> 
> I understand from your post above and below what the root problem is. Other people are stupid in your opinion, and you are not. Me included, in your opinion. Got it. If we (anyone but you) has a training issue with a dog, it can be any number of stupid related things that we are doing. Everyone has this, stupid ability, in your eyes....but.....when your dog does something wrong it's "intelligence disobedience." not a lack of training and proofing. I think you lack real understanding of training, or just have to win an argument at the cost of looking ignorant. Are you some form of a CPDT, by chance?? I have met a bunch, and a few have been very good dog trainers, just curious if you are one or not.
> 
> *I don't think other people are stupid, not even you. You're just on a one track and a bit intolerant. Even with this paragraph you want to say I've said things I haven't. Mostly my belief is if my dog does something wrong, I missed something in his training. It starts with me. Intelligent disobedience isn't the dog doing something wrong. That's what you don't understand. I don't even perceive it as disobedience. The dog is generally trying to prevent some disaster the handler hasn't noticed. Some dogs won't act. The guide dog people refer to it as the dog that takes responsibility and disobeys a command because if he obeyed, it would get his handler hurt. Say I give a wrong directional command which isn't uncommon since I don't have a very good sense of direction which some would say is an understatement. The funniest thing is even the dogs know it. Especially if they are on a drive, I may say left when its really right. If they go left it will defeat the overall purpose or in some cases lose the stock or something. The dogs ignore it. Usually I see it and then give the right directional and all is good. Did they disobey? Sure. Were they wrong? For me, no. For some others, yes. *
> 
> *I don't lack understanding of training. I don't agree with you that leadership doesn't influence training and you don't accept that and would rather imply that I'm ignorant. I also don't agree that everything a dog does is the result of a trained conditoned response and you don't accept that either. The difference between you and I is you assume. I'll at least ask.*
> 
> *Verbal volleyball aside, I think the dog world needs trainers like you and Rick with regard to aggression especially. I generally refer folks to someone like you guys because I have no tolerance for pooch that is gonna bite me out of dominance aggression or whatever label you want to put on it. A dog like that certainly can live here with that attitude. There are people who can't lead. Sometimes all you can do is rehome but maybe if they will follow directions, you don't have to rehome. *
> 
> *I have a new dog on the training roster. Owners got her to work the family farm. Initial testing--handler responsive and sensitive, all herding instincts pretty good. She was people sound. For a Beligan Sheepdog, one of the better ones I've seen. However, I didn't think she was going to be stock confident enough for the ewes and rams but time would tell. Next, dog aggressive and when she corrected [she's loaded], she came up the lead at him. The more and more he puts on her plate, it seems the more and more, she unravels. Right now after a slash and tear on a sheep last week, I don't want him to work her unless I'm there. This is a type of dog I select against and can only have a feel for from being on this forum for several years. There is a Mal person on here that I'm going to PM to try to get in her head and to check my thoughts. Tonight they emailed of another situation of correcting her in prey and her redirecting on the person. Chewing her way out of pressure is escalating. Number 1, I know that there are of lot things that are being asked of her that she can't handle. But its called come up with a plan. Feel free to comment. *
> 
> Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*
> _Is it a good term really depends on what it means to you or as Maggie says, how it is defined. For me it has nothing to do with correction or dominance. Nor that you have to revisit it if established and operant conditioning can facillitate establishing the dog/handler relationship--especially from the dog's point of view. I've had too many situations wherein I rely on the dog to read a situation and respond and never is every aspect of it trained and conditioned. There's the aspect of intelligence and analysis. Some have it and some don't. Herders refer to "intelligence disobedience." *The dog disobeys the trained/rewarded conditioned response and does something else.*_
> 
> Sounds as the dog is "calling your bluff" (please read, wasn't conditioned properly around competing motivations with your training).


 
*I do have a dog that will say screw me and your assessment is accurate in those situations. However, see above for when the situation changes and calls for something different relevant to maintaining control of the stock or its a safety issue for me.*


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> OK. so you and Sarah do it, and it's ok. Rick and I do it, and it's trying to make someone think it's something new and great? Really I am saying operant conditioning is there, leadership is not. I agreed with Joby on some of his definition of leadership. Don't be so quick to disagree, when you actually agree. Also, please don't be quick to lump yourself with Sarah. She represents herself well in an argument.
> 
> *Lord help you, you do go on don't you. You wrongfully assumed by the mention of leadership that Sara and I weren't involved in operant conditioning. If you believe leadership isn't there---OKAY. I disagree and we'll have to leave it at that. Now you agree there is some aspect of leadership. I believe that BOTH are involved and one complements the other.*





How do you know what I assume? Wouldn't it be safe to assume if you were assuming about my assumptions that I KNOW all dogs learn at some point, though operant conditioning, no matter how you think you are teaching? It's not how you train. It's how the dog learns. I am sorry you think Cesar Milan when you hear the term leadership and think others do. Wouldn't it be better if we just talked about what it really was, which is conditioning. 




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> * If you believe leadership isn't there---OKAY. I disagree and we'll have to leave it at that. Now you agree there is some aspect of leadership. I believe that BOTH are involved and one complements the other.*




Thanks. You have now answered that you believe in leadership, which was part of the question of this whole thread. How about the rest. Do you think the term is good or bad when used iwth dog training? for the record I don't think there is leadership. I think Joby's explanation was a good one. About management, resources, etc.. 



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> * Yep, I've taught herding seminars and guess what makes me different--how to use positive reinforcement and even external rewards in training a stock dog.*




At this point, after calling someone (maybe me) arrogant and that Rick and I are wowing people with a new training concept, Operant conditioning (which we aren't), I want you to explain how your statement and clearly show why you don't think YOU are arrogant, and wowing people with something new (that isn't). 

"I, Terrasita Cuffie am the only person in the world that uses positive reinforcement and external rewards in training a stock dog, and I am different because of it." That's what you just said? Wow!!!

I think this discussion has broadened past the term of leadership. I think we should start a new thread AND STICK TO IT, about something. like a debate. Where we both take a side and debate it. Where others are for or against as well and everyone can put in their two cents. Where questions are asked and answered. 

Would you like to pick the topic or topics and go from there?


----------



## Nicole Stark

Dave Colborn said:


> "I, Terrasita Cuffie am the only person in the world that uses positive reinforcement and external rewards in training a stock dog, and I am different because of it." That's what you just said? Wow!!!


(Audience laughter).

Ah, I don't know why but the urge to insert that overcame me and now it's out there. I don't want to take it back anyway.

WTF, I figure a word based laugh track might be beneficial as we lead up to commercial breaks or words from our sponsors.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. Got it. Can you explain how you establish leadership with a 6 month old rescue that was born and lived in a kennel, is aloof, with no other visible issues, but very untrained. Jumping. Mouthy. Won't walk on a leash. Runs to the hills if you let him off leash. Male. Neutered. Blue eyes. A border collie mix. Named....hmmm....Bill. Here's your chance to pass on leadership training 101 for the sake of discussion.


Actually, I have one of those--Ricky Bobby. But add that his leg was in a cast and broke in two places and he was still bouncing off the wall. One thing Sara said I need you to keep in mind. Leaders aren't hung up on on leading. Its implicit--so to speak. We don't think about it. We don't get up in the morning with that pinky and the brain question of how we are going to take over the world. I'm not sure how you characterize aloof. The extreme of this was a GSD I rehabbed many years ago--Tasha. She would look at the walls and not acknowledge any sound from me. I even wondered if she was deaf. FIRST, always, I want the dog to bond to me. For Tasha, I'd walk past her and drop food and keep on going. This was back when I was in school so late 1980s and hadn't done any studying of science and operant conditioning. This is just instinct. I should throw in that I spent my high school years volunteering at the Humane Society trying to save and rehab anything and everything. Eventually Tasha quit turning her body toward and staring at the wall and started looking at me. Then she started to follow me around the apartment and would lay in the same room. Next came the affection. Next, she would fetch a ball. After all that, I started obedience training which is what I did back then.

With the BC, he has impeccable temperament--environment/people. He would jump on you and bump his nose at your face. He also barked incessantly which drove me crazy. Always invading a dog's or human's space. Dogs couldn't stand him. He had no clue about manners. If there was any stimulation in the environment, he couldn't focus on anything. Initially he wouldn't take food from my hands and any time I would try to interact with him he would just stare at me and through me for that matter. I started out loading him to "yes." I put a crate in the downstairs bathroom so there was zero environment stimulation. That bathroom was a few feet from the kitchen. So while I was cooking if there was a second that he shut up, I'd say yes and run in and drop him a treat. Eventually, he quit just staring at me and started to make eye contact and take food from my hand. Then I taught him a down, with his head down. All marker trained. If he barked, I'd say down, c/t. Eventually the bark faded and if he thought I was in the house he'd start offering downs. He was in the cast for months so worked to calm and quiet him. I still wasn't satisfied that I was connected with him. Once his leg was healed, the final piece on that was to take him to stock. There is a bonding through that which I can't really explain to you except to say its there. That was the when I truly connected too him. As intense as he is on stock, the marker trained down and recall he performed. The jumping up at my face ended with me telling him down as he was doing it. Basically, if I think about it, I marker train the behaviors and then I put them into what is more the leadership aspect of things and more NILIF is free type of stuff. Controlling the movement and resources impacts how the dog views the relationship. Or so I think. So, its bond. Next marker train the behaviors separately and then use them in certain contexts with the dog that adds to the leadership and relationship aspect of it. My husband who trained his bouvier, couldn't do a thing with this dog and wasn't about to go through all these scenarios. Corrections didn't mean anything to him. I don't think I've never seen a BC this hard. Must be out of some of the cattle lines. This all dates back to March 2007.

Once the behavior is trained, I'm rarely reinforcing it with rewards. Ricky does all that manners stuff I taught him 5 years ago. I'm very structured with young dogs. They are on a schedule. You earn off leash privileges. I'm doing a lot of operant conditioning with recalls with Rhemy & Khyndra. Most of them I tie to me while I'm cooking, washing dishes, etc. I do a lot of kitchen training. We estimated Ricky's age at about a year and it was really a couple of years later that I felt he had some semblance of a brain. The BC people say they have a thing of being all over you climbing your body, in your face. I did all of the controlling the movement, entrances, exits, me first, NILIF and the pushy stuff faded. He's a real affectionate, social drive dog but you have to be careful with too much or else that loads him and then he loses it--if that makes any sense. So, crate, leash responsibility, scheduled walks, feeding, play, etc. Control the movement, work for the resources. If you want to get to where you are going, you'll walk calmly beside me. If you step a toe past the heel position, then we go all the way back to the start point and start over. For him, many times that was his crate. Pretty soon they get it. The result--manners, self-control and gone is all the space invasion and him trying to control you with his body. Oh, he is the dog I also began to really make use of exaggerated different tones which I got from a Scottish herding trainer. Seemed to make all the difference in getting him past that cold, fixed stare. There were a variety of things that I experimented with to find what worked. 

I generally will sit with the dog and try to get a feel for him. Watch him for awhile. Each dog is different. Then I go from there with what comes to me. There are some common threads with all of them though as I think about it. If you want to watch it at play, watch the dog pack and if it has a ladder climber like Khyndra, what is she always trying to do--monopolize the resources and control the movement of the other dogs . This is really it in a nutshell.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Nicole Stark said:


> (Audience laughter).
> 
> Ah, I don't know why but the urge to insert that overcame me and now it's out there. I don't want to take it back anyway.
> 
> WTF, I figure a word based laugh track might be beneficial as we lead up to commercial breaks or words from our sponsors.


Yep, it really is at that point.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Actually, I have one of those--Ricky Bobby. But add that his leg was in a cast and broke in two places and he was still bouncing off the wall. One thing Sara said I need you to keep in mind. Leaders aren't hung up on on leading. Its implicit--so to speak. We don't think about it. We don't get up in the morning with that pinky and the brain question of how we are going to take over the world. I'm not sure how you characterize aloof. The extreme of this was a GSD I rehabbed many years ago--Tasha. She would look at the walls and not acknowledge any sound from me. I even wondered if she was deaf. FIRST, always, I want the dog to bond to me. For Tasha, I'd walk past her and drop food and keep on going. This was back when I was in school so late 1980s and hadn't done any studying of science and operant conditioning. This is just instinct. I should throw in that I spent my high school years volunteering at the Humane Society trying to save and rehab anything and everything. Eventually Tasha quit turning her body toward and staring at the wall and started looking at me. Then she started to follow me around the apartment and would lay in the same room. Next came the affection. Next, she would fetch a ball. After all that, I started obedience training which is what I did back then.
> 
> With the BC, he has impeccable temperament--environment/people. He would jump on you and bump his nose at your face. He also barked incessantly which drove me crazy. Always invading a dog's or human's space. Dogs couldn't stand him. He had no clue about manners. If there was any stimulation in the environment, he couldn't focus on anything. Initially he wouldn't take food from my hands and any time I would try to interact with him he would just stare at me and through me for that matter. I started out loading him to "yes." I put a crate in the downstairs bathroom so there was zero environment stimulation. That bathroom was a few feet from the kitchen. So while I was cooking if there was a second that he shut up, I'd say yes and run in and drop him a treat. Eventually, he quit just staring at me and started to make eye contact and take food from my hand. Then I taught him a down, with his head down. All marker trained. If he barked, I'd say down, c/t. Eventually the bark faded and if he thought I was in the house he'd start offering downs. He was in the cast for months so worked to calm and quiet him. I still wasn't satisfied that I was connected with him. Once his leg was healed, the final piece on that was to take him to stock. There is a bonding through that which I can't really explain to you except to say its there. That was the when I truly connected too him. As intense as he is on stock, the marker trained down and recall he performed. The jumping up at my face ended with me telling him down as he was doing it. Basically, if I think about it, I marker train the behaviors and then I put them into what is more the leadership aspect of things and more NILIF is free type of stuff. Controlling the movement and resources impacts how the dog views the relationship. Or so I think. So, its bond. Next marker train the behaviors separately and then use them in certain contexts with the dog that adds to the leadership and relationship aspect of it. My husband who trained his bouvier, couldn't do a thing with this dog and wasn't about to go through all these scenarios. Corrections didn't mean anything to him. I don't think I've never seen a BC this hard. Must be out of some of the cattle lines. This all dates back to March 2007.
> 
> Once the behavior is trained, I'm rarely reinforcing it with rewards. Ricky does all that manners stuff I taught him 5 years ago. I'm very structured with young dogs. They are on a schedule. You earn off leash privileges. I'm doing a lot of operant conditioning with recalls with Rhemy & Khyndra. Most of them I tie to me while I'm cooking, washing dishes, etc. I do a lot of kitchen training. We estimated Ricky's age at about a year and it was really a couple of years later that I felt he had some semblance of a brain. The BC people say they have a thing of being all over you climbing your body, in your face. I did all of the controlling the movement, entrances, exits, me first, NILIF and the pushy stuff faded. He's a real affectionate, social drive dog but you have to be careful with too much or else that loads him and then he loses it--if that makes any sense. So, crate, leash responsibility, scheduled walks, feeding, play, etc. Control the movement, work for the resources. If you want to get to where you are going, you'll walk calmly beside me. If you step a toe past the heel position, then we go all the way back to the start point and start over. For him, many times that was his crate. Pretty soon they get it. The result--manners, self-control and gone is all the space invasion and him trying to control you with his body. Oh, he is the dog I also began to really make use of exaggerated different tones which I got from a Scottish herding trainer. Seemed to make all the difference in getting him past that cold, fixed stare. There were a variety of things that I experimented with to find what worked.
> 
> I generally will sit with the dog and try to get a feel for him. Watch him for awhile. Each dog is different. Then I go from there with what comes to me. There are some common threads with all of them though as I think about it. If you want to watch it at play, watch the dog pack and if it has a ladder climber like Khyndra, what is she always trying to do--monopolize the resources and control the movement of the other dogs . This is really it in a nutshell.
> 
> T


So you trained the border collie. with operant conditioning, and you call it leadership? We could have skipped to this page a long time ago. What here would you classify as leadership vs. conditioning. Name one thing above that you call leadership. It seems to all be conditioning. operant.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Nicole Stark said:


> (Audience laughter).
> 
> Ah, I don't know why but the urge to insert that overcame me and now it's out there. I don't want to take it back anyway.
> 
> WTF, I figure a word based laugh track might be beneficial as we lead up to commercial breaks or words from our sponsors.


Wow. I peed myself a little as I heard a very faint laughter track from the Brady Bunch. that brings back memories. What was their dog named? Anyone. Anyone? Bueller?


----------



## Nicole Stark

Tiger. Yeah baby! Oh shit, wrong movie. BTW how many times did the name Davey Jones come up in that episode? 



Anyone?


Colborn......


Cuffie.....


(mouth breathers heard in the background)....


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> [/B]
> 
> 
> How do you know what I assume? Wouldn't it be safe to assume if you were assuming about my assumptions that I KNOW all dogs learn at some point, though operant conditioning, no matter how you think you are teaching? It's not how you train. It's how the dog learns. I am sorry you think Cesar Milan when you hear the term leadership and think others do. Wouldn't it be better if we just talked about what it really was, which is conditioning.
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> Thanks. You have now answered that you believe in leadership, which was part of the question of this whole thread. How about the rest. Do you think the term is good or bad when used iwth dog training? for the record I don't think there is leadership. I think Joby's explanation was a good one. About management, resources, etc..
> 
> [/B]
> 
> At this point, after calling someone (maybe me) arrogant and that Rick and I are wowing people with a new training concept, Operant conditioning (which we aren't), I want you to explain how your statement and clearly show why you don't think YOU are arrogant, and wowing people with something new (that isn't).
> 
> "I, Terrasita Cuffie am the only person in the world that uses positive reinforcement and external rewards in training a stock dog, and I am different because of it." That's what you just said? Wow!!!
> 
> I think this discussion has broadened past the term of leadership. I think we should start a new thread AND STICK TO IT, about something. like a debate. Where we both take a side and debate it. Where others are for or against as well and everyone can put in their two cents. Where questions are asked and answered.
> 
> Would you like to pick the topic or topics and go from there?


You really do make it up as you go along. Keep grasping. If you could quote a person for what they say instead of what you think you need to justify a point, the discussions could stay on track--maybe. There may be about 5 or so out there, 1 or 2 that have done it in a seminar format, that I can think of. Mostly its blasphemy, particularly in BC circles but you wouldn't know that. Compulsion and pressure/release training is what rules in herding. A few have done some marker work with the low drive, low confidence type of dog. But certainly not believed in with the high drive, keen dog--particularly with external rewards. You will hear more about e-collars with those. But, you wouldn't know about that either. on. You're the one that claimed Don T was open to the "new" training and maybe there was hope for the rest of us. My response is only that one, it isn't new and two, as far as operant goes, I've been doing what you assumed I don't because of my stance on leadership, for years. As far as arrogance is concerned you have spun post after post insisting it doesn't exist and only trained conditioned responses are responsible for the dog's actions. You actually stated that Bob and I must have whipped a lot of dogs. Next, I don't understand training, on and on. Or to Sara, you call it leadership but that's because you don't understand that its operant conditioning. If anyone here treats others as if they are stupid, that's you. We mind as well have a sticky entitled the world according to Dave and every one say Amen.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> So you trained the border collie. with operant conditioning, and you call it leadership? We could have skipped to this page a long time ago. What here would you classify as leadership vs. conditioning. Name one thing above that you call leadership. It seems to all be conditioning. operant.


I don't think you'll ever see it or understand it and it will remain a semantic word game for you. You don't want to see it. If you understand Joby's definition as you say you do, figure it out.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Nicole Stark said:


> Tiger. Yeah baby! Oh shit, wrong movie. BTW how many times did the name Davey Jones come up in that episode?
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> 
> Colborn......
> 
> 
> Cuffie.....
> 
> 
> (mouth breathers heard in the background)....


 
You really need the JO laugh track.


----------



## Nicole Stark

JO? What's that stand for? Jack off? Hmmmm, a jack off laugh track. Not sure how that would go. Weird rhythm I'm thinking.

Oh wait did you mean JO as in Jo from the Facts of Life? Wasn't she a lesbian? Ah, I don't know sometimes tough biker chicks get called that when they are really just rough and tumble in a girly sort of way.

(more audience laughter)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Nicole Stark said:


> JO? What's that stand for? Jack off? Hmmmm, a jack off laugh track. Not sure how that would go. Weird rhythm I'm thinking.
> 
> Oh wait did you mean JO as in Jo from the Facts of Life? Wasn't she a lesbian? Ah, I don't know sometimes tough biker chicks get called that when they are really just rough and tumble in a girly sort of way.
> 
> (more audience laughter)


Really? Try Jeff O and that HAHAHAHHHAHAHAH thing he used to do. Hhhhmmm, Facts of Life and lesbian. Not in a million years would that have dawned on me. But wouldn't ever remember any of their names either.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Really? Try Jeff O and that HAHAHAHHHAHAHAH thing he used to do. Hhhhmmm, Facts of Life and lesbian. Not in a million years would that have dawned on me. But wouldn't ever remember any of their names either.
> 
> T


Jeff O! Well, I AM a moron. I don't remember that haahhahahahahaaha though. It's OK T, I figured you are probably older than I and don't remember those reruns anyway. But dang who could forget the fact that George Clooney got his start there or that ever precious Tootie for that matter? Lovely George is how I discovered the Facts of Life to begin with. LOL


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Nicole Stark said:


> Jeff O! Well, I AM a moron. I don't remember that haahhahahahahaaha though. It's OK T, I figured you are probably older than I and don't remember those reruns anyway. But dang who could forget the fact that George Clooney got his start there or that ever precious Tootie for that matter? Lovely George is how I discovered the Facts of Life to begin with. LOL


Oh I remember Tootie and her mother and even when she grew up and was acting in Living Single. I don' remember George Clooney though. I would swear I watched the originals after school in the late 70s or early 80s?

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Shazam!

A flashback for ya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsUFr0v2Yyk


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> If anyone here treats others as if they are stupid, that's you.


 
Ma'am.

Then answer why two of us thought you were calling us stupid. It' odd that two of us were thinking the same thing from your post.




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You actually stated that Bob and I must have whipped a lot of dogs.


Speaking of misquoting and making it up as you go along. Below is what I said. And I was JK sort of. I don't assume leadership means correction or heavy handed. Yet, it came up from the leadership folks. I was pointing out that you, Terrasita, were bringing up correction. Like you felt guilty or obligated to tell us that you didn't believe in correction. Are you a CPDT? just curious. Some of them have a problem with two of the quadrants of operant conditioning, but their organization and testing mentions all four quadrants and their appropriate use. I was trying to find out if you were one of those...Most people that don't beleive in positive punishment or negative reinforcement have abused it or seen it abused, vs. it's proper use. It's very understandable not wanting to use it in moderation if you don't know how or why to do it. 

I tell people it's generally better to use positive reinforcement and negative punishment in the begining with a dog. And for the emotional owners, its better always. Anger can leak into _emotional_ folks training and then positive punishment and negative reinforcement are guided by emotion instead of a clear training plan. 

I acutally typed


> You and Bob must have really whipped a dog at some point to have such a strong connection between leadership and correction. (JK sort of, but it isn't a big part of leadership that I know) I hadn't mentioned correction til Bob brought it up. If I believed in leadership in animals, I would believe in it more like the strong leaders I have had. They were smarter and stronger than one who needs to correct. Although they could and did, it wasn't primary or often.


To me, bringing this up now seems like redirection away from leadership vs. conditioning. Bob I am sure would have spoken up if he didn't get my meaning and I was meaning no disrespect.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

And the beat goes on..........

Gotta dash Dave. You keep on plugging away.

Nicole I'll check it out later. To think if we coulda got 65 posts on the drives discussion.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Nicole I'll check it out later. To think if we coulda got 65 posts on the drives discussion.T


I'd bet money on the fact we did. I mean, if you count the number of PMs that extended from that. Later Tater!


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> I say whatever, because although I haven't found anything that I can't explain away to operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and mimicry, I am sure willing to keep looking.
> 
> Taking emotion out of dog training, but not passion, I believe yeilds better results. As dog men and women, we have an obligation to dogs to get knowledge out there, and I believe conditioning is black and white, and leadership is just conditioning.


Where we differ is that I believe I have seen things that cant be explained by conditioning. I just dont believe that all dogs and horses for that matter are purely a sum of their conditioning and that leadership is just conditioning. My own experiences with my dogs, horses and yarning with old stockmen, tell me something different. I also still find it hard to think of leadership as just conditioning.

There is always a point no matter the conditioning that some people are not going to be able to handle some dogs because they dont have the qualities or temperament within themselves to make it work with a particular dog. Sometimes experienced handlers dont always click with a particular dog. 

In the field that you work dealing with problem dogs and their owners it is best to keep it simple and show people techniques that work well. The issue of leadership probably does distract from the important issues as people tend to think of leadership as dominating the dog and being boss, when it is much more subtle concept than that. Is it conditioned mmm not so sure. LOL even after 7 pages.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Sara Waters said:


> Where we differ is that I believe I have seen things that cant be explained by conditioning. I just dont believe that all dogs and horses for that matter are purely a sum of their conditioning and that leadership is just conditioning. My own experiences with my dogs, horses and yarning with old stockmen, tell me something different. I also still find it hard to think of leadership as just conditioning.
> 
> There is always a point no matter the conditioning that some people are not going to be able to handle some dogs because they dont have the qualities or temperament within themselves to make it work with a particular dog. Sometimes experienced handlers dont always click with a particular dog.
> 
> In the field that you work dealing with problem dogs and their owners it is best to keep it simple and show people techniques that work well. The issue of leadership probably does distract from the important issues as people tend to think of leadership as dominating the dog and being boss, when it is much more subtle concept than that. Is it conditioned mmm not so sure. LOL even after 7 pages.[/QUOT
> 
> I believe you have seen things that cant be explained with conditioning. I haven't yet. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 
> I believe from this discussion you can't definitively explain leadership in dogs. I and you understand conditioning. SO, that means while leadership may exist, it doesn't exist, definatively. If i missed it, point me where to look in the thread, or re-state please


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

I'd go with what Joby said.


----------



## Sara Waters

[/QUOTE=Dave Colborn;359611] I believe you have seen things that cant be explained with conditioning. I haven't yet. Doesn't mean they don't exist. 

I believe from this discussion you can't definitively explain leadership in dogs. I and you understand conditioning. SO, that means while leadership may exist, it doesn't exist, definatively. If i missed it, point me where to look in the thread, or re-state please[/QUOTE]

Probably not in this discussion which is more a collection of what we believe based on experience rather than replicated scientific evidence, but I expect someone can. 

I can see what it is in my own mind and how it relates to my own animals, especially after flicking through a few old human leadership manuals. I cant verbalise it any more than I already have. I certainly dont subscribe to pack leadership or any of that in our collection of domestic dogs. 

I do see where you are coming from but my mind has a slightly different spin on it and it is not satisfied with the explanation of everything stemming from conditioning and I am trying very hard to let go of any emotional attachments that may be clouding my judgement on the topic., but I cant discard stuff that I have seen that flies in the face being purely a conditioned response.

Is there indeed any research that proves the hypothesis that everything can be explained by conditioning?


----------



## rick smith

i was under the impression the topic focused in on "leadership in training" 

what Joby writes is pretty much the whole picture :
"good management of the time, the resources, the training, the activities. ... effectively training and motivating the dog to achieve whatever goals you have, effectively putting an end to counterproductive behaviors, and fostering whatever type of working relationship you have..kinda of like you are running a company that houses and provides everything for the employee, and the dog is the employee."

- i agree with all of these and i have discussed every single one of these areas with many customers ... i call it Responsible Dog Ownership, with capital letters, but i guess it could be labeled leadership too

- i am a big believer that it takes a total package to produce a good dog and many of these get left out by well meaning owners who only concentrate on a few of them. usually it's lack of time to work with the dog and insufficient resources to provide basic needs (mental and material) that are incomplete.

- i would add i expect a lot out of the employee too  
... it's a two way street ... 

- a lot of owners are either dictators or only providers, and either expect too much or accept a lot less [-X

but this is probably straying off topic again .... sorry


----------



## Steve Estrada

Am I missing something here? Isn't leadership really just a small important part of every canid? I believe it's part of the total sum of what all pack animals instinctively become. Without going back to the books I believe Pffanberger, Scott & Fuller all speak of this natural instinct. We know without the follow response (which can be conditionally enhanced) is a matter of survival & the integrity of the pack. (without followers their would be no need for leaders, right?) It seems that leadership would have to be a constant necessity & IMHO more is being made of it than necessary almost a conspiracy theory


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> Below are some of my thoughts on leadership.
> 
> Isn't the appearance of leadership just a conditioned response (training)? Whether it be us or a pack mate teaching? I have always heard and scoffed at leadership with dogs, because , any behavior a dog shows, he does for his own benefit or desire, though learning and genetics.
> 
> 
> I thought leadership in the context of dogs, was just a device for trainers to teach PEOPLE how to interact (train) their dogs better, to make them understand, since operant conditioning and classical conditioning are so hard to explain....(that was sarcasm).
> 
> I also believe simpler is better, the truth, if you will. I don't use leadership as a term very much, when talking to people unless to explain leadership is really conditioning or they just don't get it any other way.
> 
> _So, my one and only question that I would like answered, in this thread is, what does the term *leadership* add to or detract from dog training . _


I was just trying to think through Davids thoughts on the appearance of leadership being a conditioned response and that everything a dog does is as a response to conditioning or training. That everything a dog does can be explained by this conditioning or training, or I guess by genetics. 

I dont think it is a conspiracy theory LOL, just a bit of digging into what makes dogs ticks and are they really smart enough to make decisions outside their training/ conditioning and what drives then geneticially.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Steve Estrada said:


> Am I missing something here? Isn't leadership really just a small important part of every canid? I believe it's part of the total sum of what all pack animals instinctively become. Without going back to the books I believe Pffanberger, Scott & Fuller all speak of this natural instinct. We know without the follow response (which can be conditionally enhanced) is a matter of survival & the integrity of the pack. (without followers their would be no need for leaders, right?) It seems that leadership would have to be a constant necessity & IMHO more is being made of it than necessary almost a conspiracy theory


Steve. We are discussing the term leadership and does it add or detract from talking about training. For discussion, and I'll submit to you for the good of dogs and owners. I opine that leadership actually causes more trouble than it helps. I don't believe that anyone here has explained how it does help, when talking about training. Talking about conditioning, when speaking of training can bring concrete ideas (how to train a dog) to someone that doesn't understand the absract idea of leadership in dogs. 

Please state the position of Pffafenberger, Scott and Fuller, that you support. Please cite the writing you gleaned this from, and how you apply their thoughts to how leadership, the term applies to people and dogs. I won't blindly follow anything, and thus far, I think leadership muddies the waters when talking of dog training.

Or. Explain how Leadership is taught to a dog. Terrasita did that, as I asked, and I appreciated it. If you read her reply, leadership to her is just conditioning responses. Any literate person can glean that from her writing. 


Sarah has a gut feeling that she has that says everything can't be explained away by conditioning. This to me suggests there are things out there that we still don't know. I agree with that idea, without having evidence as it means I have an open mind, and when I see the evidence, I can add to what I know. 

Joby gave a definition of leadership that would encompass training, and not a bad way to look at it. I'll still stick to explaining conditioning vs. leadership. 

Conspiracy theory? Re read the whole of this thread in its entirity. Does it appear that there is and alledged plot of blind unexplainable following to the idea of leadership in dogs, or rational discussion. 

_A *conspiracy theory* explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely __unknown__ to the general public.- _Wikipedia.

This is a debate, not the attempted debunk of a conspiracy theory. But since you are not part of the covert group, our discussion may lead you to why the covert group is using you to spread the idea of leadership and what their agenda is:-D


----------



## Sara Waters

Dave Colborn said:


> This is a debate, not the attempted debunk of a conspiracy theory. But since you are not part of the covert group, our discussion may lead you to why the covert group is using you to spread the idea of leadership and what their agenda is:-D


:grin:


----------



## Bob Scott

I'm a huge believer in OC! That's all I've used in the past 8-10 yrs. I will also have to admit to beating the crap out of a dog or two yrs back but it had nothing to do with leadership. It was all about my lack of control and a short, shitty temper when I was younger.  Not that I'm in total control today but I recognize it for what it is. A disruption and set back in training! Like our dog training. It's a process in progress.
I think this is a great discussion. I still believe in leadership in dog traing. Probably close to Joby's explanation of it. I see no reason we/I can't look at OC as a critical part in leadereship I also believe if it was a simple as someone putting tab A into slot A then everyone/anyone could do it. I said before there are people that can train for years because they know how to put tab A into slot B. That doesn't mean they know the how and why of what they are doing. They are doing it because "so and so told me to do it that way". I have the greatest respect for those who take their training seriously and have had good luck with it.
Dave and others have brought up some great points in the discussion andwe haven't resorted to insults and name calling. That's what this forum should be about. It still boils down to dog trainers refusal to agree on terminology. Doesn't make one right and one wrong. We could both be wrong. :lol:;-)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Leadership to me is not just conditioning responses. You can't summarize my thoughts because you can't understand them and you believe one thing and one thing only. You need to stick to summarizing your own. And once again we have the condescending additive about who is literate and who isn't. With some dogs, without leadership, you couldn't conditioin responses. Operant conditioning involves four quandrants. What if the dog doesn't respond to them. Typically, they do but some don't. Those qualities of temperament that you refer to have to do with thee ability to present to that dog as the leader. This is from the dog's point of view and how dogs see the world. Control of movement and resources is about pack leadership to a dog. You think you are training and conditioning responses. The dog sees it as who leads him and the pack--period. Therefore, he submits to it. My viewpoint on this is no different from Sara. I don't need any scientific study to establish it for me. Watch dogs amongst each other. In training, you bring those qualities of temperament to the table in terms of how that dog views you. Dogs are of a pack mentality Living amongts each other cooperatively has plenty to do with who is considered the leader and who isn't. Protection people often talk about the dog that is socially dominant and we have a thread on independence running now. All that encompasses to what degree that dog accepts leadership from the human. What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is the use of conditioned responses to contribute to establishing leadership in the dog. I've seen too many people attempt to use operant conditioning and its failing because the dog is saying screw you. I worked with a dog that until I established a relationship with him I couldn't even load him on my marker. Until that dog accepts you in a certain capacity, operant training isn't going to mean diddly. He will completely tune you and your operant out. When you are training you are either using what the dog wants to manipulate him or you are using pain/force to manipulate him. Bottom line to the dog, you control what's important to him. If he wants it or to continue to feel good, he's got to play follow the leader.

T


----------



## Thomas Barriano

I miss the OC
Teenage angst on the California Beach. Of course all the actors were pushing 30 but they acted like teenagers.
I was starting to miss (not really) LC's endless nit picking long winded super dissected posts....................not anymore ;-)


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Leadership to me is not just conditioning responses. You can't summarize my thoughts because you can't understand them and you believe one thing and one thing only. You need to stick to summarizing your own. And once again we have the condescending additive about who is literate and who isn't. With some dogs, without leadership, you couldn't conditioin responses. Operant conditioning involves four quandrants. What if the dog doesn't respond to them. Typically, they do but some don't. Those qualities of temperament that you refer to have to do with thee ability to present to that dog as the leader. This is from the dog's point of view and how dogs see the world. Control of movement and resources is about pack leadership to a dog. You think you are training and conditioning responses. The dog sees it as who leads him and the pack--period. Therefore, he submits to it. My viewpoint on this is no different from Sara. I don't need any scientific study to establish it for me. Watch dogs amongst each other. In training, you bring those qualities of temperament to the table in terms of how that dog views you. Dogs are of a pack mentality Living amongts each other cooperatively has plenty to do with who is considered the leader and who isn't. Protection people often talk about the dog that is socially dominant and we have a thread on independence running now. All that encompasses to what degree that dog accepts leadership from the human. *What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is the use of conditioned responses to contribute to establishing leadership in the dog.* I've seen too many people attempt to use operant conditioning and its failing because the dog is saying screw you. I worked with a dog that until I established a relationship with him I couldn't even load him on my marker. Until that dog accepts you in a certain capacity, operant training isn't going to mean diddly. He will completely tune you and your operant out. When you are training you are either using what the dog wants to manipulate him or you are using pain/force to manipulate him. Bottom line to the dog, you control what's important to him. If he wants it or to continue to feel good, he's got to play follow the leader.
> 
> T


You are right, I can't understand some of your thoughts. It's a little frustrating to me. How about you:

Describe a dog you can't condition operantly and how you do it with leadership. 

Describe a *dog* who views a stronger *dog* as leader and how they got to that arrangement.

Also, controlling resources and movement is a big part of operant conditioning, but you call it leadership. If I was on the outside looking in, I think I could unbiasedly say you are agreeing with me. 

Dogs can't say screw you to me. They can only say, change your game plan for conditioning because what you are doing isn't working at this point. Screw you is what a victim hears. I hear, try something else. 

Your dog that you couldn't "load him on your marker until you established a relationship"...How did you establish that relationship? Control his resources (thus making the resources more valuable for the operant conditioning, freedom, food)? If not, how?

Yes, I use what a dog wants and what he wants to avoid to manipulate him, correction, reward. Explain how you do it. Correction is much nicer than a car tire. Period. Don't demonize something because you can't use it in your program. You act like you don't have a leash on a dog from womb to the grave. 

I don't know what you are saying below in bold. It's almost like you were me, talking to you. Conditioned responses (which I have articulated and you understand) in your opinion contribute to establishing leadership. So, if we I put it into a math formula since my writing isn't working. Please solve for X.

conditioned response + X = Leadership.

X = ???

*What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is the use of conditioned responses to contribute to establishing leadership in the dog.* 


The whole point of the thread was about me finding leadership to be a problem when discussing training. You have articulated my point much more clearly than I could have, I think.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> Ma'am.
> 
> Then answer why two of us thought you were calling us stupid. It' odd that two of us were thinking the same thing from your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of misquoting and making it up as you go along. Below is what I said. And I was JK sort of. I don't assume leadership means correction or heavy handed. Yet, it came up from the leadership folks. I was pointing out that you, Terrasita, were bringing up correction. Like you felt guilty or obligated to tell us that you didn't believe in correction. Are you a CPDT? just curious. Some of them have a problem with two of the quadrants of operant conditioning, but their organization and testing mentions all four quadrants and their appropriate use. I was trying to find out if you were one of those...Most people that don't beleive in positive punishment or negative reinforcement have abused it or seen it abused, vs. it's proper use. It's very understandable not wanting to use it in moderation if you don't know how or why to do it.
> 
> I tell people it's generally better to use positive reinforcement and negative punishment in the begining with a dog. And for the emotional owners, its better always. Anger can leak into _emotional_ folks training and then positive punishment and negative reinforcement are guided by emotion instead of a clear training plan.
> 
> I acutally typed
> 
> 
> To me, bringing this up now seems like redirection away from leadership vs. conditioning. Bob I am sure would have spoken up if he didn't get my meaning and I was meaning no disrespect.


Yet another example of your runaway freight train assumptions. Now we have the insinuation of abuse of or improper use of technique, guilt, calling someone stupid, blah, blah, blah. What you feel and why, I don't know. That gets into some pretty involved psychoanalysis. I don't have the patience for your cut/paste drama but that whipped comment was yours, not to mention a few others. And no, not that its relevant to any of this discussion, I'm not a CPDT. You have all sorts of axes to grind and discussion diversions.

You want to examine leadership vs. training, begin with Rick's client dog that took a chunk out of his arm and the description of the dog/handler relationship as encompassing the handler's fear of the dog. Look at the techniques he is employing and then ask yourself, what is the overall point of the employed techniques. I find it interesting that the owner wants to feed the dog raw and he's needs Rick involved. Why?

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> Yes you did. I bet you'd find that you spoke softly to the dog or praised the dog after you woke. (Go on, tell us you were completely silent and didn't pet the dog) She chained the behavior together much like detection, when we add a sit with the odor. odor, verbal sit, pay. odor, verbal sit, pay.Pretty soon, the odor makes the dog sit. in your context. wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay. She then paired the wheezing with an impulsive behavior, and you may not see it with your stock dog experience, but dogs will offer behaviors to get rewarded. She just got more and more demanding until you woke and paid her. Bam. Much like a dog head butting you to get paid. Much like a fearful dog getting rewarded with "aww, whasamatter" and then not needing any fear stimulus to make him look fearful...
> 
> 
> Next.


 

This is how you solve dog training problems. All these assumptions. At least I ask questions. Dog paws me awake. I jump and go "what?" She's sitting there staring at me. Next word, "platz." By then, I notice I'm wheezing. Reach for inhaler--puff, puff--back to sleep. This is a fricking bouvier des flanders that is 8 years old. She's never awaken me to play in her life. She has no toy drive and doesn't get off on soft words, praise and all that. She's independent and unless it involves food or livestock, she's really not that interested. Rarely does she solicit touch, petting and if I think about it, its mostly followed by her going to her food bowl. She touches you to signal she wants something not for any type of social interaction. I've had asthma all of this dog's life. It wasn't until the whistling episode that I think she noticed. Its been a year since I've had an asthma episode and I haven't had the need for the inhalers and such. She hasn't pawed me awake since the last bout resolved.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> Yes you did. I bet you'd find that you spoke softly to the dog or praised the dog after you woke. (Go on, tell us you were completely silent and didn't pet the dog) She chained the behavior together much like detection, when we add a sit with the odor. odor, verbal sit, pay. odor, verbal sit, pay.Pretty soon, the odor makes the dog sit. in your context. wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay. She then paired the wheezing with an impulsive behavior, and you may not see it with your stock dog experience, but dogs will offer behaviors to get rewarded. She just got more and more demanding until you woke and paid her. Bam. Much like a dog head butting you to get paid. Much like a fearful dog getting rewarded with "aww, whasamatter" and then not needing any fear stimulus to make him look fearful...
> 
> 
> Next.


 

This is how you solve dog training problems. All these assumptions. At least I ask questions. Dog paws me awake. I jump and go "what?" She's sitting there staring at me. Next word, "platz." By then, I notice I'm wheezing. Reach for inhaler--puff, puff--back to sleep. This is a fricking bouvier des flanders that is 8 years old. She's never awaken me to play in her life. She has no toy drive and doesn't get off on soft words, praise and all that. She's independent and unless it involves food or livestock, she's really not that interested. Rarely does she solicit touch, petting and if I think about it, its mostly followed by her going to her food bowl. She touches you to signal she wants something not for any type of social interaction. I've had asthma all of this dog's life. It wasn't until the whistling episode that I think she noticed. Its been a year since I've had an asthma episode and I haven't had the need for the inhalers and such. She hasn't pawed me awake since the last bout resolved.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Yes you did. I bet you'd find that you spoke softly to the dog or praised the dog after you woke. (Go on, tell us you were completely silent and didn't pet the dog) She chained the behavior together much like detection, when we add a sit with the odor. odor, verbal sit, pay. odor, verbal sit, pay.Pretty soon, the odor makes the dog sit. in your context. wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay. She then paired the wheezing with an impulsive behavior, and you may not see it with your stock dog experience, but dogs will offer behaviors to get rewarded. She just got more and more demanding until you woke and paid her. Bam. Much like a dog head butting you to get paid. Much like a fearful dog getting rewarded with "aww, whasamatter" and then not needing any fear stimulus to make him look fearful..._


_Next._



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> This is how you solve dog training problems. All these assumptions. At least I ask questions. Dog paws me awake. I jump and go "what?" She's sitting there staring at me. Next word, "platz." By then, I notice I'm wheezing. Reach for inhaler--puff, puff--back to sleep. This is a fricking bouvier des flanders that is 8 years old. She's never awaken me to play in her life. She has no toy drive and doesn't get off on soft words, praise and all that. She's independent and unless it involves food or livestock, she's really not that interested. Rarely does she solicit touch, petting and if I think about it, its mostly followed by her going to her food bowl. She touches you to signal she wants something not for any type of social interaction. I've had asthma all of this dog's life. It wasn't until the whistling episode that I think she noticed. Its been a year since I've had an asthma episode and I haven't had the need for the inhalers and such. She hasn't pawed me awake since the last bout resolved.
> 
> T


Yes Terrasita. This is how I solve problems. I run down my assumptions, but, if you look, I asked. When I say "I bet" it is different from an assumption, it suggests a possible theory on what you had done. Then I said, go on, tell us you were completely silent. I was asking for your input to solve the "mystery". Then you gave the input, now I will solve the puzzle. You have explained clearly about how conditioning is probably responsible for further wakings, after the first whistling episode.

Dog "touches you to signal she wants something" so she already has this behavior. Now you whistle in your sleep. She may have offered several other behaviors prior to the paw over her life, but by your own admission she "touches you to signal she want's something" so she did finally. You then said "platz" which you trained with food, because you train motivationally and she only likes food or livestock, by your admission. I am *assuming* here that you didn't train her down with livestock as a reward. Correct me if i am wrong.

So, you conditioned the dog to down with food. Reward, variable reward, and rarely need it now, but because you trained it well, she remember the food. So, when you give a command, Platz, she thinks food. Then the next time you wheez, you get a paw, to skip to the end where you should be giving her food after the command platz, which gets rewarded variably, with food, as you are a motivational trainer with a dog that doesn't like praise.

This is a possibility of how your dog learned this behavior. Please, ask someone you respect on here to see if they can see the logic. This really isn't much of a stretch, given what we know about chaining behaviors and how dogs learn.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> You are right, I can't understand some of your thoughts. It's a little frustrating to me. How about you:
> 
> Describe a dog you can't condition operantly and how you do it with leadership.
> 
> Describe a *dog* who views a stronger *dog* as leader and how they got to that arrangement.
> 
> Also, controlling resources and movement is a big part of operant conditioning, but you call it leadership. If I was on the outside looking in, I think I could unbiasedly say you are agreeing with me.
> 
> Dogs can't say screw you to me. They can only say, change your game plan for conditioning because what you are doing isn't working at this point. Screw you is what a victim hears. I hear, try something else.
> 
> Your dog that you couldn't "load him on your marker until you established a relationship"...How did you establish that relationship? Control his resources (thus making the resources more valuable for the operant conditioning, freedom, food)? If not, how?
> 
> Yes, I use what a dog wants and what he wants to avoid to manipulate him, correction, reward. Explain how you do it. Correction is much nicer than a car tire. Period. Don't demonize something because you can't use it in your program. You act like you don't have a leash on a dog from womb to the grave.
> 
> I don't know what you are saying below in bold. It's almost like you were me, talking to you. Conditioned responses (which I have articulated and you understand) in your opinion contribute to establishing leadership. So, if we I put it into a math formula since my writing isn't working. Please solve for X.
> 
> conditioned response + X = Leadership.
> 
> X = ???
> 
> *What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is the use of conditioned responses to contribute to establishing leadership in the dog.*
> 
> 
> The whole point of the thread was about me finding leadership to be a problem when discussing training. You have articulated my point much more clearly than I could have, I think.


 
Dave,

Discussing leadership and training is a problem for YOU. You want to make it a problem for everyone else. X may equal those "qualities of temperament" you can't understand. One quality of temperament is that you aren't afraid of the dog, as is the case with Rick's client dog. Ultimately its about how the dog views those qualities of temperament--not the human. I never said I condition a dog with leadership so why would I describe it. Back to your assumptions and inability to quote. You start with a conclusion and then try to prove it. That's gotten the scientists into trouble. Try looking at what's in front of you and then drawing a conclusion. Fundamental difference between you and I and why we won't agree on this. I'm comfortable with you believe what you believe and I disagree. Done. And no, I don't agree with you. You can phrase flip all you want and label, it doesn't make it so. Why is it so important that you declare that others agree with you or validate what you believe or say? First and foremost, the dog I mention regarding loading the marker wasn't mine. I need to train that dog to do something fairly complex in relation to another animal, controlling his resources is not going to accomplish that. Nor will negative reinforcement or positive punishment. You've never worked with a dog that says sorry you don't have a high value enough resource to motivate me? Its back to how relationship facilitates training/conditioning and thereafter, in the reverse. To get to the end result, its not one vs. the other, its both--or so I think. I'm content that you will never understand or agree with that statement.

Back to your assumptions. WTH does a car tire have to do with anything. Next assumption---I demonize correction. Keep making it up, Dave. I was content to opt out of the leadership discussion until post 7 and your statements regarding everything in the dog is trained conditioned. You insists on trying to explain situations you don't have any experience with and don't understand and relentlessly stating that they are trained/conditioned. Leadership vs. OC as a label and explaining training isn't that meaningful to me. Whatever works for you and your clients, groovy.

T


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Leadership or not?

I have never used the word "Leadership" although in German the word Hundeführer could be translated as Dog leader??

However, I understand Bob Scott's use of this and understand it to be "in full control of the dog whatever the circumstances".

I have "more or less" read the posts on this thread and am still wondering why this thread began 

I have never used "marker training", "operant training" I have read of, in fact, I have read a great deal of ways of making a pup / dog obedient in a certain situation. Whether these function in all situations is unknown to me.

I have run puppy / young dog classes and have had to concede to exercises which place the owner in a "higher" position but in the end effect left the pup / dog in other situations feeling "i'm the boss".

There is, in my mind, only one way to succeed:

You don't even think about whether you are the "Leader", because your pup / dog confirms it.

Off topic BUT whilst at school in a rather unruly class, we had a Geography teacher who used to walk into the class and "obedience" ruled. How she did it, I do not know but we "ruined" a number of teachers, otherwise.

Either you have the inner feeling of authority or you don't. Small children and dogs respond to this.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*
> _Yes you did. I bet you'd find that you spoke softly to the dog or praised the dog after you woke. (Go on, tell us you were completely silent and didn't pet the dog) She chained the behavior together much like detection, when we add a sit with the odor. odor, verbal sit, pay. odor, verbal sit, pay.Pretty soon, the odor makes the dog sit. in your context. wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay, wheezing wake pay. She then paired the wheezing with an impulsive behavior, and you may not see it with your stock dog experience, but dogs will offer behaviors to get rewarded. She just got more and more demanding until you woke and paid her. Bam. Much like a dog head butting you to get paid. Much like a fearful dog getting rewarded with "aww, whasamatter" and then not needing any fear stimulus to make him look fearful..._
> 
> 
> _Next._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Terrasita. This is how I solve problems. I run down my assumptions, but, if you look, I asked. When I say "I bet" it is different from an assumption, it suggests a possible theory on what you had done. Then I said, go on, tell us you were completely silent. I was asking for your input to solve the "mystery". Then you gave the input, now I will solve the puzzle. You have explained clearly about how conditioning is probably responsible for further wakings, after the first whistling episode.
> 
> Dog "touches you to signal she wants something" so she already has this behavior. Now you whistle in your sleep. She may have offered several other behaviors prior to the paw over her life, but by your own admission she "touches you to signal she want's something" so she did finally. You then said "platz" which you trained with food, because you train motivationally and she only likes food or livestock, by your admission. I am *assuming* here that you didn't train her down with livestock as a reward. Correct me if i am wrong.
> 
> So, you conditioned the dog to down with food. Reward, variable reward, and rarely need it now, but because you trained it well, she remember the food. So, when you give a command, Platz, she thinks food. Then the next time you wheez, you get a paw, to skip to the end where you should be giving her food after the command platz, which gets rewarded variably, with food, as you are a motivational trainer with a dog that doesn't like food.
> 
> This is a possibility of how your dog learned this behavior. Please, ask someone you respect on here to see if they can see the logic. This really isn't much of a stretch, given what we know about chaining behaviors and how dogs learn.


Dave, I doubt anyone will see your logic. I gave a description of the dog to try to help you out. But you will never get it because you will always seek the rationale that supports your conclusion. Khira doesn't perform every behavior asked because she has an expectation of food. Even from a conditioned response perspective there is no logic in: the dog pawed me awake expecting me to say platz with an expectation of reward. Then, a couple of nights later, she did it again. There were a couple of more repeats. Then for a year--nothing. I should have added he types of touches that are in her repertoire--she grabs my hand in her mouth mostly or licks it. She never paws for attention. She'll also bark. She never sits and stares at me. If ever there was a dog that requires that leadership I speak of, its her. But if the above analysis works for you--fine. Age 8 was a huge life marker for Khira. The prey motivation has decreased. She's more connected to me on a social/pack level and she notices when something is wrong with me. I've known and lived with this dog since she was six weeks old. I selected her for certain characteristics and I've seen her in various contexts throughout her life. I know when she's acting out of self gain and when she's not. You don't have the totality of that information. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Gillian Schuler said:


> Either you have the inner feeling of authority or you don't. Small children and dogs respond to this.


 
Agreed.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I need to train that dog to do something fairly complex in relation to another animal, controlling his resources is not going to accomplish that. Nor will negative reinforcement or positive punishment. You've never worked with a dog that says sorry you don't have a high value enough resource to motivate me?


Yes, I have worked a dog like that. It's common in bitework. You are accepting sorry instead of changing the dogs phrase to....I'm sorry, you don't have a high value enough resource to motivate me while I am next to this competing motivation, please back away from the competing motivation and try again" I know leadership tells you that controlling resources helps you be a leader. Controlling resources tells me that I can control, over time, what I allow a dog to have. I with hold the higher value, and only let him get the lower value.. IE if I don't let him bite a man in a suit long enough, or move far enough back, he will take a tug when he has an over riding desire to bite the man. 




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Leadership vs. OC as a label and explaining training isn't that meaningful to me. T


 
The world used to be flat, because people believed it. Then it was disproved. The reason for talking and discussing is the spread of new ideas. There are new ideas i got out of this thread. They were just a while back. If you think your world is round the way it is, fine. I know mine used to be flat, I found out it was round, and want to keep going and see what's next. My posting has gotten you to respond. I wonder who else reading may have changed an idea, or opened up to a new way of looking at things.

I asked a question. I didn't ask you, but I appreciate your responses. But remember, you didn't and don't have to answer.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> Yes, I have worked a dog like that. It's common in bitework. You are accepting sorry instead of changing the dogs phrase to....I'm sorry, you don't have a high value enough resource to motivate me while I am next to this competing motivation, please back away from the competing motivation and try again" I know leadership tells you that controlling resources helps you be a leader. Controlling resources tells me that I can control, over time, what I allow a dog to have. I with hold the higher value, and only let him get the lower value.. IE if I don't let him bite a man in a suit long enough, or move far enough back, he will take a tug when he has an over riding desire to bite the man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world used to be flat, because people believed it. Then it was disproved. The reason for talking and discussing is the spread of new ideas. There are new ideas i got out of this thread. They were just a while back. If you think your world is round the way it is, fine. I know mine used to be flat, I found out it was round, and want to keep going and see what's next. My posting has gotten you to respond. I wonder who else reading may have changed an idea, or opened up to a new way of looking at things.
> 
> I asked a question. I didn't ask you, but I appreciate your responses. But remember, you didn't and don't have to answer.


Dave, the little pooch I couldn't load on my marker inititally didn't have a competing motivation. To this day, the complex task I need him to do is of lower value to him than other things. He's one of the reason I don't believe dogs are merely OC lab rats. Oh and really, the responses aren't necessarily just for you.

Its training time and time for me to get into an OC frame of mind.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dave, the little pooch I couldn't load on my marker inititally didn't have a competing motivation. To this day, the complex task I need him to do is of lower value to him than other things. He's one of the reason I don't believe dogs are merely OC lab rats. Oh and really, the responses aren't necessarily just for you.
> 
> Its training time and time for me to get into an OC frame of mind.
> 
> T


So you caused competing motivations? or they just surfaced at a certain age? What task is it? Since you can't train it, and are on the Working Dog Forum, you might garner some interest in your training issue and seek help. Maybe you could keep a video log, or vlog, as the younger kids call it, as we follow your progress.

Most tasks are lower value to a dog, however, than the reward, although there are some self rewarding tasks. You have to find a high value REWARD, then figure out how to motivate the dog to do the task with that reward. But instead of assuming what you aren't doing, I am really asking. What is the task?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_" To think if we coulda got 65 posts on the drives discussion."_



Nicole Stark said:


> I'd bet money on the fact we did. I mean, if you count the number of PMs that extended from that.


I'd bet that too.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

But I don't want to derail the train:



Dave Colborn said:


> So you caused competing motivations? or they just surfaced at a certain age? What task is it? Since you can't train it, and are on the Working Dog Forum, you might garner some interest in your training issue and seek help. Maybe you could keep a video log, or vlog, as the younger kids call it, as we follow your progress.
> 
> Most tasks are lower value to a dog, however, than the reward, although there are some self rewarding tasks. You have to find a high value REWARD, then figure out how to motivate the dog to do the task with that reward. But instead of assuming what you aren't doing, I am really asking. What is the task?


What _is_ the task?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Does your dog do what you want him to do or does he ignore you or even show you the finger??


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Does your dog do what you want him to do or does he ignore you or even show you the finger?? Herr Jesus, I guess I'm getting old - how much more discussion does this involve?

My dog handling has been no way perfect. I see where I have lacked in authority. Where I have lacked, is where the dog had in certain areas the one-up over me. Hence I curtailed such activities. For the one, it was free-running in the forests for a while, until brought under control. For the other it was no contact to strangers whilst out walking. For another it was force when approaching other dogs, i.e. commando "sit" until I say ok or otherwise "I'll b..... well choke you to death if you don't behave". For another it was his over eagerness in Schutzhund - I had difficulties making him stay to heel until allowed to attack.

I doubt there is a member on this forum that has not had difficulties with his/her dogs. It's the way we go about these difficulties that counts. 

For one, there is no simple answer.

If one takes into account the dog and it's "faults" and we take into account the owner and his / her faults, where are we?

I* would find a thread about how to solve household / training difficulties more useful than how to define "Leadership" in dog training.*

My next dog is definitely going to be a stuffed one!!!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Connie Sutherland said:


> But I don't want to derail the train:
> 
> 
> 
> What _is_ the task?


Don't get caught up in this. One of the reasons I keep posting is Dave keeps recharacterizing the situations and statements to fit his theory. The result is that people think that's whats going on. With respect to the dog in question, he is a dog I don't own and I train in herding. He has pretty good food drive and likes toys. His history is pretty strong compulsion training. The whole point of the statement had to do with relationship. I might put bond/relationship on one side and training on the other. For me they both effect how successful you can be with the dog in achieving the overall result. Until this dog, I would have said if they will take food from me, they will load to a marker. Didn't happen with him. He would take the food but mentally he was freezing me out. This dog is pretty biddable. I don't think I ever think in terms of leadership with this dog. If anything I want him to get beyond that concept. This dog has herding instinct but his drive isn't that high. He's not the training problem that Dave thinks he is. He just add something interesting to my perspective in the process of learning how he views things. Each dog teaches me SOMETHING and I'm open to that always and this was his.

As for a dog that I don't have a reward that's high enough to override her competing motivation--stock. That's Khira. Negative punishment--ineffective. Correction--at the level that I'm willing to employ--ineffective. The problem with the correction and the task & corresponding drive is how the dog interprets it. It could be a disaster. So I live with it. Its a trial field issue, not a life/chore issue so not that meaningful to me in the grand scheme of things. 

So, this discussion, as much as Dave would like to make it, isn't about a training problem for me. Several posts ago he tossed in that I didn't understand training and he's back to that. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Connie Sutherland said:


> _" To think if we coulda got 65 posts on the drives discussion."_
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet that too.


 
Posts, not PMs. I got several PMS too.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Gillian. My question, and point, illustrated, is that the term leadership confuses training. 

I like what you say in general if not specifically. You say in some circumstances you lack authority, and then you correct it. Maybe the same or different than I do, but we are the same in taking responsibility. When I do something wrong with my dog, which happens more than I like. I can attribute it to me, and my application of training and conditioning of behaviors. I NEVER blame the dog for failing to learn something. If I can't teach him, then I am screwing up, genetics notwithstanding. I am surprised by dogs, often, but if I have the leash, or he is under my control. IT IS MY FAULT if something goes wrong. I don't rely on something i can't put a finger on to solve issues when they arise, and I don't tell others to do so. So, I was going to start a few threads. Ask about leadership, what drives dogs, what people look for in training, and specific stuff about exercises I am interested in training my dog. I'd like for Terrasita to change my mind about leadership, but so far she hasn't. It's not that I can't change my mind, it's that there is no compelling reason to. Hopefully we can all move on. But, this discussion does show a lack of communication among those that train as a hobby or a profession, and an inablity to agree to find small points to agree on, if the larger can't be. To me, it doesn't matter how you get there if you get there with your dog. You accomplish your goals. But, when we sit down to talk about it after the sweat from training dries, it may represent something to someone that isn't true or is hard to explain. Hence, my desire to hash this out. I know there are a crap load of people on here that can train a dog, more than a few better than me. It's not about that. It's about the exchange of ideas!!!



Gillian Schuler said:


> Does your dog do what you want him to do or does he ignore you or even show you the finger?? Herr Jesus, I guess I'm getting old - how much more discussion does this involve?
> 
> My dog handling has been no way perfect. I see where I have lacked in authority. Where I have lacked, is where the dog had in certain areas the one-up over me. Hence I curtailed such activities. For the one, it was free-running in the forests for a while, until brought under control. For the other it was no contact to strangers whilst out walking. For another it was force when approaching other dogs, i.e. commando "sit" until I say ok or otherwise "I'll b..... well choke you to death if you don't behave". For another it was his over eagerness in Schutzhund - I had difficulties making him stay to heel until allowed to attack.
> 
> I doubt there is a member on this forum that has not had difficulties with his/her dogs. It's the way we go about these difficulties that counts.
> 
> For one, there is no simple answer.
> 
> If one takes into account the dog and it's "faults" and we take into account the owner and his / her faults, where are we?
> 
> I* would find a thread about how to solve household / training difficulties more useful than how to define "Leadership" in dog training.*
> 
> My next dog is definitely going to be a stuffed one!!!


----------



## Dave Colborn

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Connie Sutherland*  
_But I don't want to derail the train:



What is the task?_

Don't get caught up in this. One of the reasons I keep posting is Dave keeps recharacterizing the situations and statements to fit his theory. The result is that people think that's whats going on. With respect to the dog in question, he is a dog I don't own and I train in herding. He has pretty good food drive and likes toys. His history is pretty strong compulsion training. The whole point of the statement had to do with relationship. I might put bond/relationship on one side and training on the other. For me they both effect how successful you can be with the dog in achieving the overall result. Until this dog, I would have said if they will take food from me, they will load to a marker. Didn't happen with him. He would take the food but mentally he was freezing me out. This dog is pretty biddable. I don't think I ever think in terms of leadership with this dog. If anything I want him to get beyond that concept. This dog has herding instinct but his drive isn't that high. He's not the training problem that Dave thinks he is. He just add something interesting to my perspective in the process of learning how he views things. Each dog teaches me SOMETHING and I'm open to that always and this was his.

As for a dog that I don't have a reward that's high enough to override her competing motivation--stock. That's Khira. Negative punishment--ineffective. Correction--at the level that I'm willing to employ--ineffective. The problem with the correction and the task & corresponding drive is how the dog interprets it. It could be a disaster. So I live with it. Its a trial field issue, not a life/chore issue so not that meaningful to me in the grand scheme of things. 

So, this discussion, as much as Dave would like to make it, isn't about a training problem for me. Several posts ago he tossed in that I didn't understand training and he's back to that. 

T

So, what's the complex task??


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> So you caused competing motivations? or they just surfaced at a certain age? What task is it? Since you can't train it, and are on the Working Dog Forum, you might garner some interest in your training issue and seek help. Maybe you could keep a video log, or vlog, as the younger kids call it, as we follow your progress.
> 
> Most tasks are lower value to a dog, however, than the reward, although there are some self rewarding tasks. You have to find a high value REWARD, then figure out how to motivate the dog to do the task with that reward. But instead of assuming what you aren't doing, I am really asking. What is the task?


 
Hahahahahah. Are you serious? Dave, once again, OC is a part of my life. I don't need THIS part. Back to your leadership thing.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Hahahahahah. Are you serious? Dave, once again, OC is a part of my life. I don't need THIS part. Back to your leadership thing.
> 
> T


 And the complex task is...bueller....bueller....


----------



## Dave Colborn

Thomas Barriano said:


> I miss the OC
> Teenage angst on the California Beach. Of course all the actors were pushing 30 but they acted like teenagers.
> I was starting to miss (not really) LC's endless nit picking long winded super dissected posts....................not anymore ;-)


 
And I missed folks ability to communicate concisely and stick on topic (not really)......:-D


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dave Colbourn said:

_I like what you said if not specifically. _

What am I to understand from this?

So, Dave what do you mean by specifically? There is a multitude of sins involved in this. 

Methinks, forgive me, that you like to talk the talk but not advise people how they should react when the dog doesn't react as they want it to.

How about a course in dog training for starters - many would welcome it "ohne Kohl" = no kidding!!


----------



## Dave Colborn

Sorry. I didn't explain that well. 

You mentioned a problem, we all have them and you explained generally how you deal with it. You take responsibility for it, and you fix it, per your writing. Your methods may be different than mine to fix it, but we have the same formula. Problem-solutions-pick one and implement. Hence I agree with identifying a problem and solving it. Without knowing how you solve it, I can't agree or disagree.

I am trying to get Terrasita to post a problem she is having with stock so I can suggest possible courses of action. Should be a riot since I don't do herding. I did describe briefly some training in this ever so long thread, to go after some probelms. Hard to pick out.

I think a course for starters is great. My suggestion would be to post a problem. IE a raising puppies question, how to train this, or that. Or what I do with a young dog....
I am good at what I do, but, that would give all the other good folks on here a chance to give there solutions. We could all benefit from each other that way. 

Or.....


Post a problem. FInd out who's interested in putting two cents in. Give us 3-5 days to send an answer to a mod, then post the answers from each individual at the same time. That should be enlightening...




Gillian Schuler said:


> Dave Colbourn said:
> 
> _I like what you said if not specifically. _
> 
> What am I to understand from this?
> 
> So, Dave what do you mean by specifically? There is a multitude of sins involved in this.
> 
> Methinks, forgive me, that you like to talk the talk but not advise people how they should react when the dog doesn't react as they want it to.
> 
> How about a course in dog training for starters - many would welcome it "ohne Kohl" = no kidding!!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Dave Colborn said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Connie Sutherland*
> _But I don't want to derail the train:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the task?_
> 
> "Don't get caught up in this. One of the reasons I keep posting is Dave keeps recharacterizing the situations and statements to fit his theory. The result is that people think that's whats going on. With respect to the dog in question, he is a dog I don't own and I train in herding. He has pretty good food drive and likes toys. His history is pretty strong compulsion training. The whole point of the statement had to do with relationship. I might put bond/relationship on one side and training on the other. For me they both effect how successful you can be with the dog in achieving the overall result. Until this dog, I would have said if they will take food from me, they will load to a marker. Didn't happen with him. He would take the food but mentally he was freezing me out. This dog is pretty biddable. I don't think I ever think in terms of leadership with this dog. If anything I want him to get beyond that concept. This dog has herding instinct but his drive isn't that high. He's not the training problem that Dave thinks he is. He just add something interesting to my perspective in the process of learning how he views things. Each dog teaches me SOMETHING and I'm open to that always and this was his.
> 
> As for a dog that I don't have a reward that's high enough to override her competing motivation--stock. That's Khira. Negative punishment--ineffective. Correction--at the level that I'm willing to employ--ineffective. The problem with the correction and the task & corresponding drive is how the dog interprets it. It could be a disaster. So I live with it. Its a trial field issue, not a life/chore issue so not that meaningful to me in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> So, this discussion, as much as Dave would like to make it, isn't about a training problem for me. Several posts ago he tossed in that I didn't understand training and he's back to that.
> 
> T"
> 
> So, what's the complex task??



_"So, this discussion, as much as Dave would like to make it, isn't about a training problem for me. "_


With respect to all involved in this thread, that's not my perception (that Dave would like to make this discussion about a training problem for you).

I asked what the task was because it might clarify for me what you're saying about not being able to load your marker with a certain dog. 


[In fact, my definition of leadership is probably not Dave's, from what I've read here, and in fact to me fits hand-in-glove with operant conditioning and classical conditioning. 

Most dogs (not all) benefit from and desire a leader (IMO). The dog who does not, the unusual dog for whom we have all kinds of descriptors (including "dominant"), isn't really the dog I'm talking about here, but a quick aside is that the way the world is with dogs living with humans, someone does have to be the leader (IMO), and it has to be me, because the alternative isn't acceptable to me. (Yes, that can get circuitous. :lol: )


_"I have always heard and scoffed at leadership with dogs, because, any behavior a dog shows, he does for his own benefit or desire, though learning and genetics." _

I pretty much agree, including accepting and in fact seeking leadership.]



ETA
I also kind of agree with : _You train your dogs, they follow you. _

But there's something else. There's something in addition that comes even before that. It's a quality that you will see in people who dogs gravitate to ("I wanna be with him"). I call it leadership.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dave Colbourn said:

_I did describe briefly some training in this ever so long thread, to go after some probelms. Hard to pick out._


Will seek this out, if it's the last thing I do.

Cheers,
Gill


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Dave Colborn said:


> If your dog is growling over a bone, etc, go to a competent trainer, the internet will get you bit....
> 
> But, Operant conditioning, not leadership, is how you begin to manage this issue. You start with a low value item, and reward good behavior with a higher value item to throw. There are other factors to consider, IE environment, level of obedience, threshold for the behavior showing, but we do this with working dogs and pet dogs all the time. Dogs that won't out, value a fight, and won't release, or are poorly conditioned to out. Maybe not to the point of the resource guarding dog here, but same principle.
> 
> get an idea though an interview when and why the behavior is showing itself. But, for the resource guarder, you set up training smart and controlled, start with a food bowl, empty but for two kernels of kibble. He eats, looks up, and you toss more in. Pretty soon, the dog sees you coming to the food with more food, not to take it. Gosh. Operant conditioning rewarding the non growling. not hocus pocus. You can progress this to high value item for high value item, and then on to variable reward mix in obedience. No free lunch. You simply time your reward with the response you want (positive reinforcement). If he doesn't offer a good behavior, you withhold the reward. Negative punishment. IE if the dog snarls after eating two kernels, you don't toss more, you wait for the good behavior, mark and reward. If the dog is horrible, you may start futher back and toss food to him in a contained (cage) environment when calm, then progress from there. You can do this though a fence or with the pet dog back tied to keep safe. You can toss food in one direction and then the other. Many variations. but please, don't try this at home without a competent trainer.
> 
> 
> It takes someone steady, and in control of their emotions and thoughtful in the setup of their training to work with this process. The handler and dog should always be safe in training, and the dog should always be more calm after training.
> 
> 
> *Operant conditioning. Taking the hocus pocus out of dog training one quadrant at a time.*


_
"Operant conditioning, not leadership, is how you begin to manage this issue."_

Of course it is. 

Leadership is a word that helps define my overall relationship with my dogs. If I used it in explaining how to address this or another training issue to someone who had the issue, it _would_ be hocus pocus. :lol:

JMO

Also, think this is actually possible: _"Maybe everyone agrees, but our lack of understanding of others' terms is causing the issue."_


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Gosh, was it something I said? :lol:

Just got back from training and logged on to read however many more pages had been posted, and :-o !


----------



## Dave Colborn

Connie Sutherland said:


> [In fact, my definition of leadership is probably not Dave's, from what I've read here, and in fact to me fits hand-in-glove with operant conditioning and classical conditioning.
> 
> Most dogs (not all) benefit from and desire a leader (IMO). The dog who does not, the unusual dog for whom we have all kinds of descriptors (including "dominant"), isn't really the dog I'm talking about here, but a quick aside is that the way the world is with dogs living with humans, someone does have to be the leader (IMO), and it has to be me, because the alternative isn't acceptable to me. (Yes, that can get circuitous. :lol: )
> 
> 
> _"I have always heard and scoffed at leadership with dogs, because, any behavior a dog shows, he does for his own benefit or desire, though learning and genetics." _
> 
> I pretty much agree, including accepting and in fact seeking leadership.]
> 
> 
> 
> OK. So if I said a dog seeks me out due to the results of operant conditioning. And wants to play with me. In my belief structure, the dog wants a reward. His behavior is increased by reward. To him it may be the end where he gets a reward, it may be the interaction in the middle (praise, contact), or it may be the next time, variable reward.
> 
> And you said a dog accepts and seeks out leadership. Could you describe what the dog is seeking out to be with you, or to be led by you?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_"And you said a dog accepts and seeks out leadership. Could you describe what the dog is seeking out to be with you, or to be led by you?"_

That's a good question.

Maybe safety and security? Or tangible benefits that accrue to confident and strong people -- benefits that "trickle down," or improve living conditions for those under that person's protection?

When a strange (or barely acquainted) dog seeks you out, maybe tries to come with you, maybe even flips onto his back in an "I trust you" position (a position that in some situations would indicate submission), what's the most likely reason in your eyes? (This isn't sarcasm; it's a real question. I have assumed that the dog perceives such a person as a desirable leader.)

I understand my dog who seeks me out because of O.C. He is happy to follow me because it leads to stuff he wants, such as fun, and "it may be the end where he gets a reward, it may be the interaction in the middle (praise, contact), or it may be the next time, variable reward."

But why does the strange (or barely acquainted) dog seek me (or someone else) out?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"So, this discussion, as much as Dave would like to make it, isn't about a training problem for me. "_
> 
> 
> With respect to all involved in this thread, that's not my perception (that Dave would like to make this discussion about a training problem for you).
> 
> I asked what the task was because it might clarify for me what you're saying about not being able to load your marker with a certain dog.
> 
> 
> [In fact, my definition of leadership is probably not Dave's, from what I've read here, and in fact to me fits hand-in-glove with operant conditioning and classical conditioning.
> 
> Most dogs (not all) benefit from and desire a leader (IMO). The dog who does not, the unusual dog for whom we have all kinds of descriptors (including "dominant"), isn't really the dog I'm talking about here, but a quick aside is that the way the world is with dogs living with humans, someone does have to be the leader (IMO), and it has to be me, because the alternative isn't acceptable to me. (Yes, that can get circuitous. :lol: )
> 
> 
> _"I have always heard and scoffed at leadership with dogs, because, any behavior a dog shows, he does for his own benefit or desire, though learning and genetics." _
> 
> I pretty much agree, including accepting and in fact seeking leadership.]
> 
> 
> 
> ETA
> I also kind of agree with : _You train your dogs, they follow you. _
> 
> But there's something else. There's something in addition that comes even before that. It's a quality that you will see in people who dogs gravitate to ("I wanna be with him"). I call it leadership.


Connie,

With the dog in question, there was no task, yet. I just needed to load the marker to be able to use marker/r+. Ultimately, with him, the task was to MENTALLY pressure livestock on cue---which once I had him loaded, I was able to do.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"_ including accepting and in fact seeking leadership.]
> 
> It's a quality that you will see in people who dogs gravitate to ("I wanna be with him"). I call it leadership.


Agreed and really evident in a couple of bouviers I know.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"_
> But why does the strange (or barely acquainted) dog seek me (or someone else) out?


Not only that, he just met you and his two owners are in the room and he seeks you and ignores them. With them, doggie gets to bite them [playfully but owner says it hurts] and they shower him with all the permissiveness, toys, and cookies he can stand. You don't have any reinforcement history with this dog--you've never given him a reward or affection and in one case, corrected the dog. Yet he ditches the owner and chooses you.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dave, the little pooch I couldn't load on my marker inititally didn't have a competing motivation. To this day, the complex task I need him to do is of lower value to him than other things. He's one of the reason I don't believe dogs are merely OC lab rats. Oh and really, the responses aren't necessarily just for you.
> 
> Its training time and time for me to get into an OC frame of mind.
> 
> T


----------



## Robin Van Hecke

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Not only that, he just met you and his two owners are in the room and he seeks you and ignores them. With them, doggie gets to bite them [playfully but owner says it hurts] and they shower him with all the permissiveness, toys, and cookies he can stand. You don't have any reinforcement history with this dog--you've never given him a reward or affection and in one case, corrected the dog. Yet he ditches the owner and chooses you.
> 
> T




I'm going to put it simply, his owners don't speak dog and you do.
Just part of the self serving nature of dogs, seeking potential leadership.


----------

