# Timing is everything with markers .. right?



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

We are discussing in my 'ball dropper post' http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=4622 the importance of timing the markers with the reward. 

I figure that this topic deserves its own thread. So here goes, the timing of rewards, corrections and markers for me have always been bit of a snag right from the beginning for me. Mike Schoonbrood said to me that you usually mess up your first 30 or 40 dogs .. this is my first real working dog.  

Reason is I am now fairly physically impaired, I'm not in a chair or anything but I require a cane for most longer times on my feet. I do without a cane a lot while training as having a cane during training negates one of my hands. So I become a fumbler looking for a clicker or reaching for a tug or a treat after the marker. =; 

Now I mark as well with my voice as well using a "good" as a transition word and "yes" as reward is on its way word for exercise done. 

I've read lots of articles on the topic of 'Markers' just I find that while yes I understand how 'markers' work I still mess it up. 

So what I'm looking for is maybe some explanations of how you would your markers in training with maybe some clear simple examples. If you use a marker in another language just explain what the 'marker' means and how it fits into the exercise you are doing. 

Thanks! :smile:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I'd consider a bait bag (fastens around the waist, has an easy-open top; I got mine from Leerburg) for treats, if that's what you use.

This way, you have the reward very handy for the beginning of marker training, when you want to clearly associate the reward with the marker. (Later, there can be fumble-time between the marker and the reward, IMO.)

Timing of the marker IS crucial. Say you are training sit, for a simple example.

The second the butt hits the floor is when you mark.

How do you feel that you mess it up? Too much time between the marker and the tangible reward in the teaching phase?

Edit to say that I keep the bait pouch behind me -- out of sight. With the easy-open top, it can be left open and easily accessed during training.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Teach correct eye contact. focus on the eyes instead of looking for hand movement. We do this for everything from basic postion to obedience for a bite.
> The timing of mark and reward is critical. As Maren said, if your reaching for the reward before or during the marker being given, the motion of the hand will null and void the actual marker word/clicker. Trigger happy or gun slinging.
> Sounds like your dog is looking for those movements instead of the mark.


Well she gets the mark and then looks for the reward. The mark becomes something else. I'm just worried that she is starting to think that she is getting rewarded for the mark and not for the exercise. Where the reward should be for the exercise not the marker. Does that make sense?


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> How do you feel that you mess it up? Too much time between the marker and the tangible reward in the teaching phase?


Yes ... that is it. For example Face attack .. She is not allowed to move or bark from heel position until she gets the command. She gets all driven and wants to nail the decoy. I consistently miss the 1.5 sec to bring her back into heel position. Same for treating I mark and she is all antsy waiting for the reward and I'm fumbling around with the clicker in one hand while trying to pull out a piece of hot dog etc.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> Yes ... that is it. For example Face attack .. She is not allowed to move or bark from heel position until she gets the command. She gets all driven and wants to nail the decoy. I consistently miss the 1.5 sec to bring her back into heel position. Same for treating I mark and she is all antsy waiting for the reward and I'm fumbling around with the clicker in one hand while trying to pull out a piece of hot dog etc.


So you have switched to verbal marker, right?

Even though I don't train what you're training, it still sounds like just a fluidity/speed thing ... I'd practice both giving the marker with no move toward the reward until the marker has been given, and also easy access to the reward (and I do like the bait bag for food rewards).

But others who are teaching what you're teaching will be better help.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Have you practiced without the dog?

Sounds silly, but I did that when I first learned marker training. 

Seeing what Bob posted in your message:
((( Originally Posted by Bob Scott 
Teach correct eye contact. focus on the eyes instead of looking for hand movement. We do this for everything from basic postion to obedience for a bite.
The timing of mark and reward is critical. As Maren said, if your reaching for the reward before or during the marker being given, the motion of the hand will null and void the actual marker word/clicker. Trigger happy or gun slinging.
Sounds like your dog is looking for those movements instead of the mark. )))

It's clearer. Can you do more practice with a simple command to work on your timing?


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> So you have switched to verbal marker, right?
> 
> Even though I don't train what you're training, it still sounds like just a fluidity/speed thing ... I'd practice both giving the marker with no move toward the reward until the marker has been given, and also easy access to the reward (and I do like the bait bag for food rewards).


Yes I use a 'verbal' marker now but still put in a clicker from time to time depending on the exercise. 

My issue is exactly what you have described as a


> fluidity/speed thing


. So that's what I am looking more for is examples of how to be fluid in marking ... either in a correction or a reward. I do practice it and as well I try to think ahead to have all my ducks in a row. But as you know dog training always is in a state of motion, so one exercise one day may come off better or worse than other days. Then all my ducks are ascew. =P~ That's when I screw up as a handler.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Oh, OK, then..... what I'm suggesting really is applicable. :lol:

Practice! Really, try doing the marker and then getting the reward with no overlap.... without the dog.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Geoff said;
"so one exercise one day may come off better or worse than other days."

Sounds like your human like the rest of us.  
A couple of things to think about. 

We suggest, as Connie did, to do a lot of practice work without the dog. The most common mistake is "gun slinging". Reaching for the reward during, or even before the marker is given. That voids the marker. I'm often guilty of this myself when I'm on the training field. I'm trying to pay attention to the TD, the dog, and think about what I'm doing/going to do. ADHD at it's best!   By myself I'm a master trainer! :---) :lol: :lol:
Something else to remember. Once the marker is given, the exercise is over for the dog. If he breaks for the reward, no big deal. He did what you wanted.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Something else to remember. Once the marker is given, the exercise is over for the dog. If he breaks for the reward, no big deal. He did what you wanted.


Oh, that's a great point, which I completely missed.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I have even read somewhere to practice in front of a mirror.

You will see things like twitching toward the reward before the marker is given.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Hi Geoff,

I used to train dolphins full time. I also have worked with many people with physical impairments. (capuchins to aid handicapped people. For history and video, see: http://synalia.com/108/announcements/)

What you guys call markers, are technically called bridges. There are two kinds, Terminal Bridges (TB's) and Intermediate Bridges (IB's). Terminals tell the animal he is finished. Intermediates tell the animal he is on the way to success, but he is not finished yet, until he hears the Terminal Bridge.

The Intermediate Bridges mark the whole path to the desired behavior, kind of like Hansel and Gretel left a bread crumb trail to find their way home. As a result, instead of giving the animal one point of information only (the Terminal Bridge) we are telling them ALL they did right. 

Good thing is, even if you leave the Terminal Bridge off completely, they "get it" and are very able to cope that that lapse. 

And the timing, while important, becomes much more forgiving. Since I teach people, I can tell you that even without physical impairments, many have a hard time getting the Terminal Bridge correct. And why not? For one thing, you have to have a bit of ESP to get it, because the animal does not always go as far as you predict he will.

If you are a member of IACP, I will be presenting information on this there, at the June conference in Hutto. If you want more information now, you can google Intermediate Bridge. However, you can bank on my information on this, as it is my contribution to the field.

Regards,
Kayce Cover


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*PS*

Videos of bridging and applications of bridging.

http://synalia.com/videos/

Kayce Cover


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Actually watching yourself is hard to beat. Setting up a video camera is fantastic. You can go over it numerous times and get something different out of it each time.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Kayce Cover said:


> What you guys call markers, are technically called bridges. There are two kinds, Terminal Bridges (TB's) and Intermediate Bridges (IB's).


That would be Geoff's "yes" and "good."

That's an interesting point about the IB allowing the handler to omit the TB. I'm not sure how it would work for me in the teaching phase, when even though I am using IBs, I tangibly reward after the TB (marker).


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Very interesting!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I've always felt people try to complicate this whole issue. We use "good dog" as the marker, followed by the primary reinforcer (ball, tug, toy etc). The dog learns "good dog" means the ball is on its' way. Exactly along the lines of what Bob Scott said. 

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

you will need the IBs more and more as you start linking behaviors together and/or increasing the length of exercises.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Kyle Sprag said:


> you will need the IBs more and more as you start linking behaviors together and/or increasing the length of exercises.


The IB is simply letting the dog know he's doing good. The TB is the actual release with reward at just the right time of perfect performance. 
Is that correct in your method?


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

Yes, example: if you want to Heel with a down in motion and recall you have several behaviors Linked and I use IBs to connect them without ending but still letting the dog know he is on the right path.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Bob Scott - video*

You are absolutely right. Video will help you faster than anything. What we think we do is not what we are actually doing, sometimes. Mirror is great. Working with another trainer helps (one not afraid to tell you what you are doing!).


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> That would be Geoff's "yes" and "good."
> 
> That's an interesting point about the IB allowing the handler to omit the TB. I'm not sure how it would work for me in the teaching phase, when even though I am using IBs, I tangibly reward after the TB (marker).


I said in my original post that sometimes I do omit the 'yes' or terminal bridge when moving from one similar exercise to another similar exercise. I.E. heeling with leash vs heeling with muzzle. Both exercises just sorta flow into each other and the dog stays in drive to be focused on the task at hand. 

Kayce thanks for linking us to your site, I'll spend some time trying read it now, that's some real cool stuff you are doing. 

David says it is a pretty simple concept . I totally agree once you've had someone explain or demonstrate the concept. But me with the hundreds of different situations and behaviours dogs can do I still can get caught off guard. Not just for rewards for correct behaviour but for marking unwanted behaviour without reverting to negative reinforcement as well.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Connie, Bob, Kyle*

Connie:

"Yes" and "Good" can be markers. However, there are better choices, which if you are trying to guide a really fast dog, are better. You want a percussive, hard consonant sound, like ggggg or ddddd or xxxxx. You are trying to mark an increment of behavior as quickly and precisely as possible, and that behavior, part of a stream, is changing constantly, so you have to stay in the game.

You can tangibly reward, but there is research which suggests that you get stronger behavior by using tangible (you will also see the term "primary") rewards (reinforcers) intermittently. With exotics, it is considered by many to be dangerous to create a rigid expectation of food. More people get challenged trying to leave animals after training than any other time.

Bob:

Yes, you have the gist correct. However we can continue the cue and keep the behavior going, even after a terminal bridge. Kind of like a period ends a sentence, but not the paragraph. When working monkeys, for example, once they are on the job, they are not off until specifically released. If a handicapped partner is eating or socializing, the monkey is still on the job. However, during that "work time" there are going to be events which warrant particular attention, feedback and recognition. 

It is a challenging habit to acquire, but it will support working dog performance in a big way.

Kyle: You are right that when you link behaviors you will need more IB's. You can also intensify IB's when a challenge is approaching, keeping the animal anchored to successful behavior.

Some worry that the dog becomes dependent on this feedback. Nothing further from the truth. The dog is able to get more information on exactly what we want and becomes really confident. Once he understands he doesn't want the support, like a kid when he learns to tie his shoes.

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Geoff and website*

It's my pleasure, Geoff. On the bottom of the video page you can request free start up directions. We are about to revamp to make it more user friendly. "About" means "sometime in the next year", by past practice at least.

However, I apologize in that there are some videos, but not many pictures and it can be hard to follow information about physical things without visuals.

I was mentioning to Kyle that you can intensify the IB stream. It can be a good thing to do when you meld two behaviors, just as Kyle was suggesting. So, you don't have a TB, but you have an intensification of the IB stream at that juncture. 


This also works like a charm when you are going by a distraction. When I spot a distraction, I name it for the dog, start the IB's, intensify as I get closer and fade as we pass. It will often keep the dog right with me, as if the distraction were not even there.

Regards,
Kayce Cover


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Kayce said;
"You can tangibly reward, but there is research which suggests that you get stronger behavior by using tangible (you will also see the term "primary") rewards (reinforcers) intermittently. With exotics, it is considered by many to be dangerous to create a rigid expectation of food. More people get challenged trying to leave animals after training than any other time".

Good point! We refer to "intermittent" as random reward. It will intensify the dog's desire to perform. Just be careful to NOT fall into a set pattern of "randomness". Confusing huh!  
Also referred to as slot machine training. Pulling the handle (doing the correct behaviour) and not getting rewarded just builds the intensity of preformance for the next reward.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Bob Scott: "Also referred to as slot machine training. Pulling the handle (doing the correct behaviour) and not getting rewarded just builds the intensity of preformance for the next reward."


Great anaology, and Yes. My experience too. And you can get dogs that won't work unless they know they will get food - so performance in the ring falls down.

Kayce


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Random reward is als varying the reward itself. Sometimes a piece of hot dog, sometimes a piece of steak, sometimes a bite toy. It's like giving the same cookie for good behaviour to a child all the time. He likes that cookie but something different is a great suprise and can build his desire to continue good behaviour.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

*Re: Geoff and website*



Kayce Cover said:


> This also works like a charm when you are going by a distraction. When I spot a distraction, *I name it for the dog*, start the IB's, intensify as I get closer and fade as we pass. It will often keep the dog right with me, as if the distraction were not even there.
> 
> Regards,
> Kayce Cover


What is the purpose to naming the distraction?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Kayce said;
"Great anaology, and Yes. My experience too. And you can get dogs that won't work unless they know they will get food - so performance in the ring falls down".

Ring wise! IMO, that's a dog that has been bribed to perform instead of a dog that has been rewarded for performance. Not uncommon to new treat trainers and one of the criticisms from some correction trainiers.
The same thing happens when a correction trained dog knows he doesn't have the e-colar/pinch collar on. 
It's about understanding. Not technique!


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Random rewards...*

Yes, you can randomize many aspects of reward or "reinforcement." It can all get a bit ponderous.

We have two reinforcer systems, or "schedules", going on at the same time. 

1) Bridging, which is "Continuous" or in other words, one bridge for one behavior, or in the case of the IB, a stream, leading to 1 TB/behavior.

2) Tangible, or "Primary" reinforcers, which can be randomized (number or type changed) or intermittent (frequency is changed). They can be randomized for delivery (may or may not get one), number (may get 0, 1 or more) and type (steak, kibble, cheese, ball, etc). You will hear this referred to as a "Variable Schedule of Reinforcement".

The terminology is a pain, but I like to see it in the hands of the working professionals, because academic types (much as we love them) can throw it at you like ammo from an automatic and it can confuse people and shut them out of a conversation or debate.

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Bob re "ringwise"*

Well said!

Kayce


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Naming distractions*

Konnie Hein:"What is the purpose to naming the distraction?"


Hi Konnie,

When you name a distraction (goes for many other things) then you can "talk" about it. It can make a big, fast, difference in dog performance. Let's say a dog sees an intruder. He barks to alert you. If you can give him feedback and say, something as simple as "Intruder, X!"

You are giving him feedback and acknowledgement at the same time.

Once we started this, we found it leads to a rich but currently controversial practice of naming lots of things for animals. So, I teach a pig to allow a tech to insert a 5 inch needle into the vena cava, one inch from heart (real example) and if the pig moves, and the tech nicks the nerve, the pig can drop dead. Now, the pig goes to a new farm. We need to do the same procedure. Since we named all the elements involved, we can literally tell the pig: "We are giving you a vena cava stick, get easy. Ready? xxxxxxxxxX". The pigs will stand voluntarily for the procedure if they know and agree up front, but if you just try to stick a needle in them, without telling them first, you get a different result. It is called a rodeo.

Kayce


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Kayce said;
> "Great anaology, and Yes. My experience too. And you can get dogs that won't work unless they know they will get food - so performance in the ring falls down".
> 
> Ring wise! IMO, that's a dog that has been bribed to perform instead of a dog that has been rewarded for performance. Not uncommon to new treat trainers and one of the criticisms from some correction trainiers.
> ...


That's where I don't want to go, I got an e-collar around christmas. I collar condition trained her 3 weeks + and it's funny I still haven't tried to use it for any real training. The only thing I used it for with a 'stim' albeit @ a lowish level of 25 out of 127 watching her try to eat poop in the backyard. It's a Dogtra 1700. 

Any consequence stuff i.e. slow recall or broken downs etc I have done so far is with the pager. She knows that if I reach for the transmitter she reacts different 'already' even before I press the page button. The buzz of the collar's pager is all she needs for basic stuff so far to get a reaction out of her. Though I still worry about her getting collar or ring wise. 

She is a typical female Malinois, cerebral with over the top drive to work and please. But in the same breath softer on corrections .. including voice. She sure has been an eye opener for me to work with. I totally had/have to change my outlook on what I thought was good training techniques. 

My French Ring coach (trainer) says it is all about the mind game not about leash corrections or negative consequence reactions. Hard to grasp it sometimes still I admit.


----------



## marcy bukkit (Oct 4, 2007)

How do you differentiate between the TB and the IB? I've always been decent at using the IB, but not sure if I really have a TB for the dog or not, outside of using my release word - would that be a TB?

With the naming of distractions - I've heard other people talk about a method called "Look at That". Is this the same thing that you're discussing? I'd be interested in learning more about it.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

*Re: Geoff and website*



Konnie Hein said:


> What is the purpose to naming the distraction?


The way I understand it as a "leave it" Your heeling in the Ring and another Dog is barking and jumping. Your dog wants to go over and play or beat on the other dog. You say "Aaaah or Leave it" and then continue heeling while giving the IB marker in my case "good" .. You've acknowledged that yes there is another animal making a rukus but in continuing heeling was the correct behaviour for your dog to do. 

Same thing for when people come to my door. Initial Barking is good, once I am at the door before I open it, she is to lay approx 6 feet from the door and stand down and just watch me until I release her.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

marcy bukkit said:


> How do you differentiate between the TB and the IB? I've always been decent at using the IB, but not sure if I really have a TB for the dog or not, outside of using my release word - would that be a TB?
> 
> With the naming of distractions - I've heard other people talk about a method called "Look at That". Is this the same thing that you're discussing? I'd be interested in learning more about it.


TB can be the same sound, or a different one, but it is louder/sharper/more emphatic than the IB. We note it in writing xxxxxxxxX! where xxx are the IB stream and X is the TB. If you check out those videos, you can hear examples with various types of bridges.

A release word can be used as a TB, but often, it is a shade different (genius is in the details, sometimes). In training, the TB usually comes at peak or best effort, while the release comes after some DURATION of a behavior.

I have not heard about the "Look at that" game. It may even be a spinoff.

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Neat thread, I am learning lots.

I like marker training and sometimes use a clicker too. "yes" is my terminal bridge. I use "good" as an IB, and it works for me, the continuous GGGGGG is new to me, and interesting. I beleive I understand the concept.

Geoff,

To help my timing and reward delivery in the begining stages when it is really important, I try to be flexible. If I need extra hands I put a bunch of rewards in my mouth and spit them. Sometimes I keep a bunch in a free hand if I have it and chuck them one at a time. SOmetimes I use an apron. An added bonus of this is the dog does not always know where the treat comes from. I have aslo learned that where the reward ends up (reward placement) can make a difference to the training as well.

When I taught the dog that jump on my shoulders thing, I had someone else deliver the reward in the early stages as I was not in a position to do so, shuffling him about on my back.

I also start knew things that I will click for at home, inside. I mostly use the clicker for teaching brand new things, or fixing mistakes I have made in the past. I find I concentrate harder on my timing with the clicker, and the dog seems to understand it well now. I know this is not possible for everyone but inside I can use a counter or some such thing for treats and really break things down into simple parts with no distractions. Sometimes it is not the dog that needs the lack of distractions, but ME!

Being Canadian, and having the job I do, it is hard for me to use food rewards in the winter at work. I switch to toy rewards for more formal obedience outside at work. Dog doesn't mind one bit. I sometimes keep a couple of tiny dry treats on me at work and reward something he does really well when he is not expecting a reward of any kind at all. Probably one or two pea sized treats in the whole work day for some non-formal obedience complience. I try to keep him guessing. Sometimes there is no rewards for non formal compience for weeks...just depends.

I am on my first (working) dog too and have made LOTS of mistakes. One I wish I could change was using a correction while shaping the hold. My dog is soft when not in drive and I shut him down and I can't work the hold the way I want to anymore because of that one bad event. Mistakes make us better. NOt only will the dog not forget, but I won't either! This correction may work great for some dogs...but I should have realized it would not work on mine.

The more I fart around with markers and obedience, the more i realize I have to learn. Frustrating but facinating. I don't think my timing is that bad when training new things...but in fixing old things taught poorly (rookie), I find it harder to decide when and what and how often to reward..... I also find I lack patience when trying to shape, and like to skip steps I probabaly shouldn't...

Learning right along with ya buddie! Thanks for starting an interesting thread.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> The more I fart around with markers and obedience, the more i realize I have to learn. Frustrating but facinating. I don't think my timing is that bad when training new things...but in fixing old things taught poorly (rookie), I find it harder to decide when and what and how often to reward..... I also find I lack patience when trying to shape, and like to skip steps I probabaly shouldn't...


I get caught in that (rookie) trap to Jenn. You see handler trainers with oodles of experience like Kayce, Bob, Connie, David et al work one of their dogs. It seems so seamless and magical. Then you want that exact same behaviour from your own dog. Me like yourself would lose patience and overcompensate one way or another then screw it up even more. Consistently inconsistent! So typically greenhorn!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I can't speak for anyone else, but my OB work isn't seamless OR magical. :lol:

Three important things I have learned: (1) TIMING; (2) It's never bad, when something isn't clicking, to back up to where you and the dog were doing perfectly -- even if it's backing up to step one; and (3) Break every command into the smallest pieces possible and get each one perfect before stringing them together.

Here's a really good quote from Bob Scott, which I think was in response to someone whose dog "fetched" fine but didn't give back the item: " 'Fetch' isn't taught by throwing the item and hoping for the best.' "

:lol:


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Here's a really good quote from Bob Scott said:


> Calling on BOB! Can I use that quote in a retrieve presentation I give for my SAR group? It is great, and I have just the spot for it!! I will make sure it is know that it is a Bob Scott original. It is original right???


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Geoff Empey said:


> I get caught in that (rookie) trap to Jenn. You see handler trainers with oodles of experience like Kayce, Bob, Connie, David et al work one of their dogs. It seems so seamless and magical. Then you want that exact same behaviour from your own dog. Me like yourself would lose patience and overcompensate one way or another then screw it up even more. Consistently inconsistent! So typically greenhorn!


Geoff,

At least you have a real live trainer to work with. Presumably those French Ring folk know a thing or two....

I am on my own here :-(


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

*Re: Naming distractions*



Kayce Cover said:


> When you name a distraction (goes for many other things) then you can "talk" about it.


Thanks for the clarification, Kayce! Makes sense.

A lot of what you're talking about (IB and TB) I've been using with my horse. Works wonders!!! I'm going to try naming distractions with him now too. Hadn't thought of that, but I'll bet it will help him. He can be a little flighty sometimes when out on a ride.

Jen - the more you do this type of training, the better you'll get. Try it on different species too, it will help you refine your dog training. Working with my horse has definitely helped me in that way. Its also redefined for me what is possible via this type of training. (I need to try it on husband and child now too!)


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: Naming distractions*



Konnie Hein said:


> Try it on different species too, it will help you refine your dog training.


Does obedience training with a Pug count? :lol:


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

*Re: Naming distractions*



Connie Sutherland said:


> Does obedience training with a Pug count? :lol:


Only if it is the Pug on the first M.I.B movie!


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

I see myself using IB a heck of a lot more than TB and I keep blurting from time to time the TB ... then going oops I didn't mean that. But the dog is easy on me. I have been finding that it is more the way you say it than what you say means a difference between an IB and a TB, well at least at this stage of the game with the relationshp with my dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: Naming distractions*



Geoff Empey said:


> Only if it is the Pug on the first M.I.B movie!


:lol:


No, this one is alien-looking, but he's not that one.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Geoff, 
I assure you that I will screw up every time I go on the field. It may be a poorly timed mark. A misread of the dog, etc. I've commented earlier about my trying to listen to the TD/watching my dog/trying to coach the dog/etc is a trial in itself for me.
It would be totally boreing if everything went without flaws and mistakes.   
Years of expierience doesn't necessarily make a better trainer. The good ones are the folks that never stop trying to learn.

Jennifer, 
I made that comment in referrence to back chaining the retrieve. 
Feel free to use it. It's been so long since the first time I said it, I don't even rember if it's mine.  :lol: :lol:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"Years of expierience doesn't necessarily make a better trainer. "

A dear friend of mine used to say: there are those that have 20 years experience. There are also those that have 0ne year of experience, 20 times. There is a difference.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> "Years of expierience doesn't necessarily make a better trainer. "
> 
> A dear friend of mine used to say: there are those that have 20 years experience. There are also those that have 0ne year of experience, 20 times. There is a difference.
> 
> DFrost


Amen to that!


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Jennifer, I enjoyed your picture. When you say your are "out there" it looks pretty far from civilization, but beautiful and your dog looks beautiful.

Konnie, 

I am glad to hear your report with your horse and you are right that it gets easier with time and people get more fluent, which the animals love. They will start to work just because it is interesting to them, in the same way we sit here and type our fingers off in order to exchange ideas.

Let us know how you like naming distractions. 

Consider naming other things as well and telling your horse or dog what you will do BEFORE you do it.

Connie and Bob, 

You are both very modest. I look forward to seeing you work one day and anticipate that I will see that magic Geoff describes.

I on the other hand, am not so modest. It is indeed magical when I work a dog: magic that the dog remembers anything since the last time I managed to get out to train, magic that everything I thought I had taught has disappeared, magic that they do lots of things I did not teach them, magic how they know to get me over a barrel, and mostly, magic in my own mind (remind me not to watch videos of my own work). I guarantee that if you see me work, you will see all the above magic and probably some more I am too modest to claim here. (I am a little modest!)

;>
Kayce
Kayce


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

When you name things or identify things for the animal do you actually use the word i.e 'car' or do you use a predetermined IB marker to bring the animal back into focus?

For example I'll be walking my dog and another dog may be lurking behind the hedge that we don't see. That dog will start barking and we both jump. I say aaa gggggood dog and keep walking while saying ggggood dog to my dog. She calms down and refocuses on me and we carry on like that dog never spooked us in the first place.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Hi Geoff,

From my perspective (re naming scary things), the instant I got surprised, I would (try) to say, "X, dog, easy, xxxxxxxxxxx" as we passed.

Here is an analogy that I use: if we were in LA, and heard a gunshot, how would you feel? Would you feel great if I looked totally unconcerned, but also as if I never even noted the shot? How about if I looked panicked? But if I say, "there is a police firing range on this block" I bet you would feel fine. Your emotions and behavior might smooth right down, not as a matter of training or experience, but as a matter of information and perspective.

Talk is cheap, so why not?

Our dogs need to know that we get their alerts, and that we are on top of the situation, and this helps them to relax, or so it seems to me.

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Kayce Cover said:


> Hi Geoff,
> 
> From my perspective (re naming scary things), the instant I got surprised, I would (try) to say, "X, dog, easy, xxxxxxxxxxx" as we passed.



I'm trying to reconcile this with my own (and I imagine other people's) policy of not caressing (voice or hand) a fearful dog, but matter-of-factly moving on.

I guess a difference here might be that the naming is done before the dog actually is fearful? Or maybe that the naming is done very matter-of-factly?


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Interesting thread.
Perhaps I've got the wrong idea about the "naming of objects" idea, though.
I will occasionally acknowledge things verbally but if I do, I'll simplify everything with a "leave it" or "lets go" command. Personally, I see little need to name individual things and in my experience, have seen more problems than good arise from too much "conversation" with ones dog. 
The dog has no clue that you are saying "theres a firing range, it's ok" vs "they're lining German Shepherds up around the corner, try to look lab-ish ok?" 
From a behavioral aspect, if something that ideally should not startle a dog does (loud vehicle, predictable gunshots) and you converse with them, they accept that as 1) you are also nervous and expressing your equal anxiety with the dog or 2) you encourage their over-reaction (referring only to things that of course you do not want the dog to react to). Neither empowers you as a leader. It's like the average pet owner whose dog lunges aggressively and they either shout at it (which the dog takes as "joining in") or inadvertently encourage it by explaining "it's ok, Peaches, he just wanted to say hi". 
If a dog startles, they should seek your guidance as their leader and if you are confident and unconcerned, they should see that as the proper response. In nature, you will never see a leader "console" or "explain" something to a nervous pack member. It's simply expected for a follower to trust the leader's decision to advance or flee. I'm not trying to lessen the dog's ability to learn, but I strongly disagree that dogs need the human value of explanation. 

On the flip side, if you are trying to associate a verbal cue with a desired action, that's another story.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I'm trying to reconcile this with my own (and I imagine other people's) policy of not caressing (voice or hand) a fearful dog, but matter-of-factly moving on.
> 
> I guess a difference here might be that the naming is done before the dog actually is fearful? Or maybe that the naming is done very matter-of-factly?



I understand where you are coming from Connie, and maybe Kayce can clarify. 

I know that if a young dog gets agitated at something .. say another dog walks by and your dog's hackles raise and yours gets snarly and agitated. If you go to your dog and start making a fuss over it petting it and talking to it trying to sooth it at that time. You can actually reinforce that negative behaviour from your own dog as in effect you are rewarding it for the hackles and aggression cues. 

To me it's a pretty fine line between naming something to moving it into the next IB marker it has to be a state fluid verbal movement combined with action. Maybe I'm wrong but that is the way I see it. Thoughts?


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Kristina Senter said:


> Personally, I see little need to name individual things and in my experience, have seen more problems than good arise from too much "conversation" with ones dog.
> The dog has no clue that you are saying "theres a firing range, it's ok" vs "they're lining German Shepherds up around the corner, try to look lab-ish ok?"


I'm sure Kayce will elaborate further on the idea of naming objects, but her explanation of it in reference to the pig prompted me to try it. I haven't tried it with my dogs, but I've already tried it with my horse. Here's how it goes...

We're out on a ride, he sees something moving toward us in the distance. He doesn't know what it is and starts to get nervous (natural reaction for a prey animal, after all, it could be a lion or some other predator). I say, "Easy, its a PERSON, PERSON, PERSON." He remembers the last several times he heard that word, it was in reference to a human being who just passed by quietly and didn't bother him. Now he knows there's nothing to be afraid of. He knows what to expect and settles down.

So, in essence, I am associating a verbal cue with a desired action. They DO have a clue what you're saying because you've said it before and they make an association between the word and the non-scary object. Its a little different than reinforcing the fear by saying, "Its OKAAAY sweet puppy, mommy isn't gonna let anybody hurt my sweet baaaby" while patting them on the head.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I haven't had horses in a number of years, but I trained them differently and they reacted differently than dogs to the same situation when I did have them. I think it has to do with the horse being a prey animal, their first reaction to something unknown is more inclined to spook/run but a dog is a very different kind of animal being a predator. I find pups and young dogs are more apt to show curiosity more naturally than horses and so consequently I am not as often dealing with flight/fear response. A young dog will look to my reaction in an unsure situation and tend to mirror what I do, so if I don't react or reassure they don't react negatively. At least this has been my experience with my dogs.


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> I say, "Easy, its a PERSON, PERSON, PERSON." He remembers the last several times he heard that word, it was in reference to a human being who just passed by quietly and didn't bother him. Now he knows there's nothing to be afraid of. He knows what to expect and settles down.


I'm curious, though, if you said "Easy" or "Walk on" or "Leave it" in that situation, why would the effect be any different than teaching the animal "PERSON", "TRUCK", "TREE", "COW", and words to associate whatever else you'll come across? I really have to agree with Susan, too. Horses, being prey animals with a very different understanding and application of heirarchy than dogs and have a much harder time just trusing and mimicing their leader than dogs do. There are many ways to teach any behavior. While this method may work, I dont think it will be any more effective than several other methods.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Kristina Senter said:


> I'm curious, though, if you said "Easy" or "Walk on" or "Leave it" in that situation, why would the effect be any different than teaching the animal "PERSON", "TRUCK", "TREE", "COW", and words to associate whatever else you'll come across? I really have to agree with Susan, too. Horses, being prey animals with a very different understanding and application of heirarchy than dogs and have a much harder time just trusting and mimicing their leader than dogs do. There are many ways to teach any behavior. While this method may work, I dont think it will be any more effective than several other methods.


I sort of feel the same way, that being said I still haven't tried naming things in a big way or have had a weird situation where I'll need to say "PERSON", "TRUCK", "TREE", "COW" etc on top of a "leave it" or "walk on". 


Though I can see where the named expression becomes another IB marker to take the animal into the next IB marker of "heel" or whatever. Really for all intents and purposes my dogs day from the time she is let out of her crate, is a series of IB markers from one thing to the next. Whether it is being fed to going potty or practicing a difficult protection routine IMHO. Until she gets put back in to her crate or stood down it is one thing to the next. 

It just clarifies in the dog's head what is expected with the extra named info. You say "PERSON", "TRUCK", "TREE", "COW" etc then the dog has more confidence in you as the pack leader, as you've said it and acknowledged it so therefore you are not blowing off the dogs reaction to it.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Connie: I'm trying to reconcile this with my own (and I imagine other people's) policy of not caressing (voice or hand) a fearful dog, but matter-of-factly moving on.

I guess a difference here might be that the naming is done before the dog actually is fearful? Or maybe that the naming is done very matter-of-factly?

Yes and Yes. Also, as KONNIE points out, we also name things when the animal is not frightened, so that they do know what we are saying. 

In any career where people must respond in emergencies, even in case of a nuclear bomb, where nothing we do will make any difference until afterwards, there is always a list of things to do. Physiologically, adrenaline/dopamine share the same receptors as the neurotransmitters of conscious thought. If the animal is actively engaged in thought, he simply cannot get as aroused/panicked. So, as soon as I see trouble brewing, I start talking about it and what we are going to do about it. 

Kristina: Our animals develop incredible vocabularies. Rather than project what they know and don't know, start testing them. You know for a fact that they know "get your toy" "go for a walk" "you can't go with this time" and much more. Where is the limit? Wherever it is, actively teach more - names of individual toys, people in your family, actions like "find". Then put them together: Go find Jeff, or Go find your toy. See what the limits are, rather than imagine what they are.

I guarantee you that dogs will follow a communicative leader better, and with more finesse, than a non-communicative leader. So will people, for that matter. So, experiment. 

I can't argue how your dogs interpret your leadership if you talk to them. However, I can state that my animals, whatever species, don't act as you predict in the scenario you describe. 

GEOFF: You are correct. We use our voice to distract the animal from the distraction/challenge, and we can often change the mood from instant to instant. If I end up with a happy confident dog, I was appropriate. If I end up with fearful dogs, I was not. I may not be able to transmit any nuances, but the technique is robust enough that lots of people have plenty of success without even ever seeing the technique demonstrated. You are right about the fluidity, but that takes a while for many to maintain. If you are getting it, that is really great.

KONNIE: It is so great that you tried this. Thanks for the feedback/update. You are right on, in your analysis of the difference. Now try slipping the IB in, as you pass, rather than repeating the name of the distraction. Next, you can teach the quadrants of a circle and start telling your horse: "Deer at noon." Later you can teach the hours, to be even more specific. "Deer at 2 o'clock."

SUSAN: I work a lot with horses and dogs and I don't see much difference. In fact, I don't see much difference in training horses and any of the carnivores I have worked. Most things are prey to somebody. Maybe the information changes the way horses react. Anyway, it is a great way to work with horses, because if they wig out, you can really get hurt. So, by keeping them mentally engaged, they're less likely to wig out.

I really appreciate the comments, questions and test-it-yourself mentality.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Kristina Senter said:


> I really have to agree with Susan, too. Horses, being prey animals with a very different understanding and application of heirarchy than dogs and have a much harder time just trusing and mimicing their leader than dogs do.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I disagree. Horses live in herds with a distinct hierarchy. For example, I have 2 horses right now. The mare is definitely the boss of the 2. When she panics, you'd better believe the gelding panics too, regardless of whether or not he's seen the thing that made her panic. When she's calm, so is he. He trusts her judgment implicitly.

To me, their herd behavior isn't all that different from pack behavior in dogs (in the way they relate to each other).


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I disagree. Horses live in herds with a distinct hierarchy. For example, I have 2 horses right now. The mare is definitely the boss of the 2. When she panics, you'd better believe the gelding panics too, regardless of whether or not he's seen the thing that made her panic. When she's calm, so is he. He trusts her judgment implicitly.
> 
> To me, their herd behavior isn't all that different from pack behavior in dogs (in the way they relate to each other).


 
Leadership, leadership, leadereship! You may learn the moves but without it nobody can become a good trainer!!!


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I disagree. Horses live in herds with a distinct hierarchy. For example, I have 2 horses right now. The mare is definitely the boss of the 2. When she panics, you'd better believe the gelding panics too, regardless of whether or not he's seen the thing that made her panic. When she's calm, so is he. He trusts her judgment implicitly.
> 
> To me, their herd behavior isn't all that different from pack behavior in dogs (in the way they relate to each other).


I absolutely agree horse have a hierarchy, but in my experience, it functions quite differently from a canine's in several aspects (certainly not all). Perhaps I was never as good at being a strong leader for my horses as I am for my dogs, lol (which is entirely posible), but I find it far easier to effect my dog's confidence through my example than I ever did my horses. In my experience, dogs have an easier time accepting HUMAN leadership than horses do (without any training).


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

*On leadership*

Hi all,

Many times we are disoriented when approaching a different kind of animal. In my experience, within a few minutes of meeting a new animal, they usually feel like meeting any other new friend. Where there is baggage from old, damaging relationships, this may not be the case, so I think there is always cause for caution. However, I don't find much difference, outside of species specific customs, when approaching any of the animals I meet, prey, or predator. 

The species specific communication can be a humdinger - for example, don't stare at gorillas or else. But once you are past that, they learn and think much like all the other animals. However, if an animal gets adrenalized, it does not think very well, and they are dangerous, no matter what kind they are. A little river otter can jump armpit height from a flat stand and bite you and put you in shock from the experience, even if they are not likely to rip your arms off with a single head shake.

With horses, I think they are more more subtle than a lot of dogs are. If you are "impolite" they can close you out very quickly. I see many horses that are dissociating. I feel this is very sad because I believe the horse cannot tolerate his conditions and "be present" so he opts for being "absent".

Horses, even more than dogs, seem to really respond to being invited in to work and being told what is going on. They seem to judge leaders by their knowledge, behavior and ability to get good things done, rather than on a might makes right basis, or even just a strength basis. Once I got to meet Andy Beck's White Horse Project herds. These are family groups of both sexes, intact. There were three definite positions in the herd, lead stallion, lead mare and pathfinder mare. The first horse that approached was the stallion. Once he passed me, the pathfinder mare and her foal approached (not the lead mare). Andy explained that they are finding that the pathfinder mare is a curious, risk-taking individual who is also expendable. It is only after she lives through meeting the new thing that the lead mare, who chooses pastures etc, will come forward to meet. She is too valuable to put at risk, he said.

Anyway, I find the horses are really responsive to information. Many times, even if they are aroused, they will calm right down.

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> ... he sees something moving toward us in the distance. He doesn't know what it is and starts to get nervous ... I say, "Easy, its a PERSON, PERSON, PERSON." He remembers the last several times he heard that word, it was in reference to a human being who just passed by quietly and didn't bother him. ... So, in essence, I am associating a verbal cue with a desired action. They DO have a clue what you're saying because you've said it before and they make an association between the word and the non-scary object. Its a little different than reinforcing the fear by saying, "Its OKAAAY sweet puppy, mommy isn't gonna let anybody hurt my sweet baaaby" while patting them on the head.


(The above was about a horse, but in a discussion of naming the anxiety-triggering thing with a dog.)

OK, now that I've done this, I think I get it better.

Example: One adopted guy drove me kinda crazy when the lawn people came with their loud machines and opening/closing gates. But they came every two weeks -- not really often enough to work on it.

I started saying (as soon as I heard the truck on the day they were expected) "Lawn guys!" while looking out the window and also acting/sounding very calm and upbeat.

Now (a few weeks later) I don't have to see/hear the lawn guys first to forestall the excited barking. When they come in the gate and he barks, I look outside, turn to the dog and say "Lawn guy!" and the dog stops barking.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Not for nothing, but I think that you all are over thinking the stupid dog. On the face attack, take your cane with you and when she decides that she just has to go, which dogs of any worth are going to, as well as look at the decoy as a stronger reward, when she gets out of position, crack her with the ****ing cane. THere is a point where pet trainers just annoy the **** out of me, and I cannot take their bridges and treats and reward schedules any more. They do not train what we train, and until they do, my ass they can kiss. LOL

It was very nice to hear about the terminal bridges and intermediate bridges, and to see people try to understand them, but ring is not a pattern, and it is a house of cards without the other end, which is do it, or get wacked. Something I am not happy with, but until someone actually learns dog talk, which would prove that dogs use pain as stimulous to do things, ie stay out of my ****ing bowl, which everyone cannot figure, then I am sticking to what works.

Quote: I consistently miss the 1.5 sec to bring her back into heel position.

This is where you lost it, or you were botching the explaination......something I am really good at.#-o


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> ring is not a pattern ... Quote: I consistently miss the 1.5 sec to bring her back into heel position. ... This is where you lost it#-o


1. But not everyone (not even close to everyone) does ring. :lol:

2. Yup.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Let me rephrase then, pet training is not bitework. He was talking about ring, and as the original poster, that means that ring should be addressed, not just lumped in like this shit is just gonna work. Oh sure, it would be nice.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Let me rephrase then, pet training is not bitework. He was talking about ring, and as the original poster, that means that ring should be addressed, not just lumped in like this shit is just gonna work. Oh sure, it would be nice.




I had forgotten about the original post: _"So what I'm looking for is maybe some explanations of how you would [use] your markers in training with maybe some clear simple examples. If you use a marker in another language just explain what the 'marker' means and how it fits into the exercise you are doing."_

and was going more on this later post (still the same poster):

_"When you name things or identify things for the animal do you actually use the word i.e 'car' or do you use a predetermined IB marker to bring the animal back into focus? ... For example I'll be walking my dog and another dog may be lurking behind the hedge that we don't see. That dog will start barking and we both jump. I say aaa gggggood dog and keep walking while saying ggggood dog to my dog. She calms down and refocuses on me and we carry on like that dog never spooked us in the first place."

_It had segued into whether or not to name distractions, and was no longer specific-training oriented.


Anyway, I thought that naming distractions sounded like too much focus on the distraction. 


P.S. Now ... well, I don't know, now.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Let me rephrase then, pet training is not bitework. He was talking about ring, and as the original poster, that means that ring should be addressed, not just lumped in like this shit is just gonna work. Oh sure, it would be nice.


Umm I was talking about timing markers and used a ring exercise as a example. :-$ 

Sure you may like to beat your dog with your effin cane but I was told to lift the dumb dog off its feet by stepping on a long line with a prong collar when it takes off without command or whip it across the back with a spare leash... Both techniques work but really I don't care to do either if I can help it. The cane is little bit of overkill no? It's only a decoy in a suit not the end of the world. 

Things have come a long way since I originally posted this thread. Sure using IBs and TBs may not fit in 'all' things Ringsport but if you think about them in the bigger picture of things not just petcrap training you might be surprised on the overall improvement with your working relationship with the dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Geoff, did you ever give that naming-the-distraction a try?

I am still not sure what I think about it. :lol:

I'm just so used to believing (strongly) in just marching on past mild distractions .... no attention, etc.

This: _I'll be walking my dog and another dog may be lurking behind the hedge that we don't see. That dog will start barking and we both jump. I say aaa gggggood dog and keep walking while saying ggggood dog to my dog. She calms down and refocuses on me 

_seemed like enough verbalizing if any was necessary.

But now I don't know.  Maybe naming brought familiarity to the dog with the "lawn guy." Every time I say "lawn guy," he knows exactly what is going on.

And he gets to have his alert acknowledged with no "no bark."


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Kristina,

I had my doubts too about too much talk with a dog. I used simple commands "get it" "leave it" and a target. That was getting really cumbersome and leading to error.

I dropped out the "get it" type command (expect for encouragement), added a (clumsy) IB and simply used the object name. It's been like 3 days and I'm noticing dramatic improvement. 

I hadn't thought of naming distractions and I'm really not sure about how that applies. I think some dogs would get amped up with the attention on the distraction, while other dogs would be able to deal better. You know your dog best...


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

I did try it and try to implement it in my day to day with her. Obviously the Ring training field is a different kettle of fish. Though I do talk to her in between exercises to a point, calms me down a bit. (Most Judges frown on excessive praise and the like in between exercises) Gotta keep those general allure points! 

Kayce did say talk was cheap and it is, but for some things it just doesn't matter. She is going to bark anyways like at the mailman or the lawn guy .. I feel like a tool going "mailman mailman mailman" she just tunes me out and barks her fool yell off at him any ways. Maybe I should utilize the Oehlsen 'cane' or the Gaines 'wiffle bat' method in its place. 

Though I've had good results with 'bark' vs 'no-bark' but then it is not really a IB in the real sense that Kayce or Balabanov have shown us. 

I'm not on the fence about the IB and TB but naming for me is not 100% yet I haven't given up on it. But most of our training doesn't require it and I assume for it to be effective it needs to a lot more consistent than what I'm doing as I have let it slide.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I consistently miss the 1.5 sec to bring her back into heel position.


Totally gone the other way now .. I always wondered why my TD would yell at me *"WATCH YOUR DOG!!"* I know now. Trust me if she gets out of line its me who needs the whack with the cane. Especially now when we do off leash stuff your eyes and voice are your only leash, when we are on the training field she doesn't get away with nothing. If she does it is my fault.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Things have come a long way since I originally posted this thread. Sure using IBs and TBs may not fit in 'all' things Ringsport but if you think about them in the bigger picture of things not just petcrap training you might be surprised on the overall improvement with your working relationship with the dog.

I actually have a really good relationship with my dog, as I have spent a lot of time teaching the basics over and over, so when he gets wacked, he gets why. Also, he doesn't move on the face attack.     

Unfortunately, I think you will find that unless you start with a particular system like this for OB and whatnot, changing it around with your dog is just a waste of time. Better to keep notes for the next dog, and just get better at what you are doing within the system you have started with. I know people that are constantly looking for the "magic bullet" that will solve their weak foundation problem.

You are not alone in this, most people go to seminars and **** about with their training too much. It is the American way, a tranfer over from the early Sch days for sure. One thing I can tell you is that the people that I know that just stick to one way style whatever, get the job accomplished.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Connie Sutherland said:


> This: _I'll be walking my dog and another dog may be lurking behind the hedge that we don't see. That dog will start barking and we both jump. I say aaa gggggood dog and keep walking while saying ggggood dog to my dog. She calms down and refocuses on me
> 
> _seemed like enough verbalizing if any was necessary.
> 
> ...


And that is just the start. Try telling the dog earlier in the day, "the lawn guy is coming today, be easy when you see him" or later, when he has this down, "come get me when you see them". Of course you have to teach the meaning of "come get me".

The point is not to repeat the information again and again, but to inform the dog, one time. The point is to communicate. Keep it real.


Glad to see people trying this. I got a chance to address the IACP conference and demonstrate all this. I really got a kick out of seeing people's jaws drop when 5 dogs in a row learned their bridges, targets, recalled over 100 ft, and learned the name of a cell phone and glasses, and id'd each correctly in less than 2 minutes. I just went through the first 5 dogs I came through. I have a bunch of new interns now, and the book table got mobbed. I think there are some new people trying this from that group as well.

Power on!

Kayce


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Geoff Empey said:


> Kayce did say talk was cheap and it is, but for some things it just doesn't matter. She is going to bark anyways like at the mailman or the lawn guy .. I feel like a tool going "mailman mailman mailman" she just tunes me out and barks her fool yell off at him any ways.


Sounds like you are doing great, Geoff! No need to repeat. Just tell her once, and then tell her her what you want from her, and you may have better luck using "quiet" than "no-bark". Most animals and people have a hard time processing negators.





> Though I've had good results with 'bark' vs 'no-bark' but then it is not really a IB in the real sense that Kayce or Balabanov have shown us.
> 
> I'm not on the fence about the IB and TB but naming for me is not 100% yet I haven't given up on it. But most of our training doesn't require it and I assume for it to be effective it needs to a lot more consistent than what I'm doing as I have let it slide.


Maybe this will help: Imagine I was blind and you were guiding me through a city. What would you tell me to prepare me and inform me to keep myself safe and together. That is the same kind of info your dog will appreciate.

I am really glad you are simply trying this stuff. I hope you will continue and get to a new level with naming. It can really make life better.

Best wishes,
Kayce


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I actually have a really good relationship with my dog, as I have spent a lot of time teaching the basics over and over, so when he gets wacked, he gets why. Also, he doesn't move on the face attack.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think you will find that unless you start with a particular system like this for OB and whatnot, changing it around with your dog is just a waste of time. Better to keep notes for the next dog, and just get better at what you are doing within the system you have started with. I know people that are constantly looking for the "magic bullet" that will solve their weak foundation problem.
> 
> You are not alone in this, most people go to seminars and **** about with their training too much. It is the American way, a tranfer over from the early Sch days for sure. One thing I can tell you is that the people that I know that just stick to one way style whatever, get the job accomplished.


I totally agree Jeff.  We are trailing for our level 1 in October and we just work grips on the long line basics basics basics with recalls and guards nothing like a great foundation to build on. That way there is no deviation and no chance for her to **** around. Being a young dog with good potential she learns things fast but that is a double edged sword she also learns bad habits fast I found as well. 

Seminars are fun and you can always take something away from them. But you are right to many people try to flip flop their whole regimens because they see the next 'big thing' in training in the end you have a dog that doesn't know what the handler/trainer wants. 

To me what I've found as well as yourself K.I.S.S and basic, less room for error and when the dog ****s up or handler it's not a song and a dance to fix.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Kayce Cover said:


> Sounds like you are doing great, Geoff! No need to repeat. Just tell her once, and then tell her her what you want from her, and you may have better luck using "quiet" than "no-bark". Most animals and people have a hard time processing negators.
> 
> Maybe this will help: Imagine I was blind and you were guiding me through a city. What would you tell me to prepare me and inform me to keep myself safe and together. That is the same kind of info your dog will appreciate.
> 
> I am really glad you are simply trying this stuff. I hope you will continue and get to a new level with naming. It can really make life better.


Yes in living with the dog it does. I have a lot of fun with it. Though on the ring field she is in another level of drive that it is hard for her to relate to my voice. It's really hard to describe the different level of drive she gets in when bite work is involved. You'd need to see it in the flesh for sure some day. 

Thanks again for the help.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

It may be that the time to give your dog info related to ring work is before she is in the ring - before she goes into drive.

But, I do know what you are saying and appreciate the difference.

Regards-


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: It may be that the time to give your dog info related to ring work is before she is in the ring - before she goes into drive.


Do you only read marker training posts ? ? ? ? You obviously have not read what we say about the Mals. LOL


----------

