# using markers for gripping



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

watching a recent clip brought this to my mind again ....

a little hard to describe in words....
i've seen lots of vids/clips where a dog is pretty much allowed to bite and engage based on the helper/decoy movement....i don't see many where the dog is under handler control and then given a command to engage, except maybe on send outs and even a lot of those seem to be decoy/helper triggered rather than handler directed

so i'm interested to hear from anyone who uses markers (OC), how they use them for directing biting....as in, how you set up and do the session (via reps/sets, etc)
* NOT referring to tug play...
* AM referring to sleeve/wedge/suit work

i might call it "handler directed prey drive", but that may make it spin off in other directions....so i won't call it that 

if it's a stupid Q feel free to tell me


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I don't have any video of it, but with my past dog we did an exercises were the decoy was passive, the dog was at my side in a down about 10 feet from the helper. On command the dog was directed to bite. He attacked and hit the sleeve at full force. It was one of my favorite exercises. Thanks for bring up that memory! :smile:


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

We do that all the time in our sport is asking for eye contact from the dog before we send. As we are always worried about the dog breaking the line in trial and zeroing the exercise. 

I mark the eye contact with a clicker. It starts off when the dog is a pup over food, it really is the basis of all dog training for me, is eye contact. As the dog gets older, to me all dog training is done with rules and and steps for the dog to follow to get it's reward. i.e. eye contact before sending on the decoy, release the retrieve item before they get the ball etc. When one exercise begins another starts. It is path to reward, reward and alternatively consequence for not following the path for reward. 

So in the dog's reality all things come from the handler. "Handler directed prey drive" is a misnomer I wouldn't call it that either. The dog either has prey drive for a specific item, and is in it or not. How the handler controls the dogs impulse to engage the item while the dog is in a specific state of drive, is just obedience and training.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Tx so far ....

i TOTALLY agree on focus first for ALL training
...and for suuuure i don't want to relate this to any drive because it doesn't belong there imo 

but i continually see decoy/handler triggered bites rather than any control by the handler to send the dog...even in the training of early levels of bite work

- and of course i realize that in many sports there are instances where the dog is allowed to key off a decoy's movement or lack of it...CRYSTAL clear on that

Ed...regarding a passive decoy engagement ... roger that ... for sure, that would be a necessary start point; Tx for relating that ONE .... but would the same dog also remain under control if the decoy moved and offered the sleeve 
...that is a BIG next step for most dogs who like to engage and that is what i've never seen trained at early stages, altho i've seen finished dogs who are capable of it ... 
but :
- by the later stages of their training or competing (what is shown in most clips), they know the rules and know exactly when they can engage on their own ... it's just like knowing there won't be anyone hiding in those first few blinds 

fwiw, i happen to believe it is a problem in sports that allows a dog to key on a decoy and engage when it is NOT a guarding situation...if handler control was emphasized more, i don't think this would happen

for example :
bark/hold; decoy in the blind ... why shouldn't the decoy be able to tempt the dog to engage by movement (rather than be a statue), but the dog be required NOT to, until specifically sent by the handler ??
...that would seem like a much more valid test of handler control, wouldn't it ??
- when i've been with other dogs, any decoy movement in the blind would usually make the dog launch and it was hard to decondition that reaction ......owners said stop because : 1. it was creating a dirty dog and 2. would never happen on the trial field, etc ...i had felt it was a needed distraction to proof the B/H  ...owner was always right since it was their dog, etc 

not suggesting to change the rules, just throwing out an opinion that is not based on comp experience


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

rick smith said:


> but i continually see decoy/handler triggered bites rather than any control by the handler to send the dog...even in the training of early levels of bite work


You answered your own question here



rick smith said:


> - and of course i realize that in many sports there are instances where the dog is allowed to key off a decoy's movement or lack of it...CRYSTAL clear on that


If you train a command into an exercise that later is going to be done without commands, you are setting yourself up for some real issues down the road with a dog who hesitates to engage on it's own in an exercise it's required to. If instead you can teach the dog to engage on the correct decoy movement, ie getting within a certain distance of the object, an escape move in an escort, a hit in the defense of handler, without any handler command, you are one step ahead of the game in terms of the finished product.



> i've seen lots of vids/clips where a dog is pretty much allowed to bite and engage based on the helper/decoy movement....i don't see many where the dog is under handler control and then given a command to engage, except maybe on send outs and even a lot of those seem to be decoy/helper triggered rather than handler directed


This depends on the sport. In Sch they have an escape bite where the dog is expected to go on it's own, but that's the only bite I can think of in a sport where the dog isn't in close proximity to the decoy/helper where it goes for a bite without a command. And they actually just added a command to this exercise. In Ring, French and Mondio, all the sends for bites are on a command, and not on a decoy/helper trigger, the decoy tries to trigger the dog to bite before it's commanded, but if the dog does it's a point loss or a zero depending on the sport.

As for the rest, IMO if a person isn't training for the "extras" that can happen, such as a decoy/helper moving around in the blind, then they are simply cheating their own training and not preparing their dog completely. Train above and beyond anything the dog will see on the field, and the trial should be easy. But even here you have to be careful. For example in French Ring the decoy escapes from the blind and the dog bites (without command). If you train to much movement in the blind, without a bite, the dog may hesitate when the actual escape comes, not sure if this is just more movement they aren't supposed to respond to, or if this is the time to bite. I've seen dogs in an escort running along in their guard position with a fleeing decoy, without biting, because when that decoy "fled" the dog wasn't sure if it really was an escape, or just a trick to get them to bite early or out of their escort position.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

I really think it all is training. In my training group we have a couple dogs that always always come into the blind and nail the sleeve on a stationary helper. The helper doesn't entice the dog but the dog self rewards on him/her any ways. The dog continues to be allowed to do it so always does it. So it is all what the dog has been allowed to do and guided to do. 

But if the dog gets used that there is consequences for nailing the helper in the blind the dog will learn to be clean. 

As for why shouldn't the decoy entice the dog to bite in the blind. Well that isn't really the exercise is it? The exercise is find the decoy in the blind and alert the handler of the decoys presence. Whether it is a directed search in Schh or free search in FR/Mondio etc. 

The decoy in high level Schh trials may still entice the dog by holding the sleeve directly straight in the face of the dog, there never is a an escape or bite in a Schh trial Blind search so why allow a bite? Outside of building a strong bark on the helper is the only way I'd let a Schh dog have a bite in a blind, but that's just me. In Ring the job of the dog is to find and alert on the decoy. Then the decoys job on the signal of the judge is to escape and take meters away from the dog, and the dogs job to stop him. 



rick smith said:


> Ed...regarding a passive decoy engagement ... roger that ... for sure, that would be a necessary start point; Tx for relating that ONE .... but would the same dog also remain under control if the decoy moved and offered the sleeve
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably not with a greener dog .. the dog gets put into prey drive. Without a lot of building control foundation any dog is an opportunist. We do train for that in our sport same way as pushing the line and after the recall to return to handler. Then it either the exercise hasn't started or it is tout fini. 



rick smith said:


> but i continually see decoy/handler triggered bites rather than any control by the handler to send the dog...even in the training of early levels of bite work


Why is that a problem when training early levels of bite work? It isn't. Many people forget that you need to build confidence with grip building. When you put any control and especially compulsion type of control grips suffer, the training suffers. So much better to build the grips and then after the dog is 110% come down on it to bring it back to control. If the bite work is built in a fun way it will always revert back to that foundation even after you put rules around the exercise. 

For example you want the dog to jump something. It's the first time the dog jumps anything. But you get stressed because the dog wants the ball and won't sit so you can place the ball for the dog, so the dog gets stressed because it wants the ball and you get stressed because the dog won't sit. Do you think the dog will ever enjoy jumping? The same goes for bite work for the most part. To much control in the foundation creates problems later. I'm talking Malinois for the most part here.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

tx again.... this is more interesting to me than to crate or not 

quick point :
re: " For example in French Ring the decoy escapes from the blind and the dog bites (without command)"
which i'm interpreting to mean :
- if decoy escapes, dog loses
- if dog reacts fast enuff to prevent that, dog wins
.......points added/subtracted accordingly

if true, a good example of what i DON'T like in sports ...
there is no reason why a fleeing decoy should give a dog the green light 
- the HANDLER should be making that decision
- i'm watching the decoy (duh), so when it tries to escape, obviously i would send the dog; the faster it catches the decoy the better(more points)
---if the decoy is just shucking and jiving...my dog stays
---if i allow the dog to do what it wants i am not controlling it, am i ??

i thought a dog ONLY engages on its own when either it is guarding me or its object...fleeing decoy is not an attack on a handler that should require defense of handler by the dog ... so, to me, a bad rule 

--------
also, would i have been right in wanting to allow a helper to show movement in a blind for B/H training ? ... or is it a first step towards developing a dirty dog ??
...it may come up again, and looking for moral support 
....and i don't think i've ever seen a decoy or helper moving in the blind during B/H training so that's what made me ask


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "Quote:
Originally Posted by rick smith
but i continually see decoy/handler triggered bites rather than any control by the handler to send the dog...even in the training of early levels of bite work"
------
Why is that a problem when training early levels of bite work? It isn't. Many people forget that you need to build confidence with grip building. When you put any control and especially compulsion type of control grips suffer, the training suffers. So much better to build the grips and then after the dog is 110% come down on it to bring it back to control. If the bite work is built in a fun way it will always revert back to that foundation even after you put rules around the exercise. 
- bad choice of words, sorry, shoulda been "understood", not even 
- understand building grip confidence in early stages so of course let the dog engage in drive by the movement, etc 
- and once on the bite, build it up even more with encouragement .... dog learns when it bites it gets to keep biting and SHOULD maintain grip, etc

--- so once this IS solid, when do you now keep the dog in control when the decoy/helper is moving and trying to trigger a bite to break the dog to launch on its own ? THAT is what i never see being trained, unless you consider restraining it on lead a method of handler control, which i know you don't, since this is the opposite of handler control (a frustration and drive builder)......maybe there are training vids of this out there and i should just look for em ?

re: "For example you want the dog to jump something. It's the first time the dog jumps anything. But you get stressed because the dog wants the ball and won't sit so you can place the ball for the dog, so the dog gets stressed because it wants the ball and you get stressed because the dog won't sit. Do you think the dog will ever enjoy jumping? The same goes for bite work for the most part. To much control in the foundation creates problems later. I'm talking Malinois for the most part here."
--- sorry, but i don't quite get this analogy .... to prevent stress, i would just require a more solid (proofed) sit b4 going to a jump; or even toss in a down sit and/or stand b4 a jump (i do that a lot) ... maybe an antsy dog that wants to get ahead of itself ?? 
...but that's just me ... i go VERY slow on any foundation b4 adding another layer


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

> ....and i don't think i've ever seen a decoy or helper moving in the blind during B/H training so that's what made me ask


That may be because there is no decoy or blind in the BH.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

B/H = bark and hold (or hold and bark)
not the BH title, if that's what u were referring to not having anyone in a blind or not having a blind


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

rick smith said:


> --- so once this IS solid, when do you now keep the dog in control when the decoy/helper is moving and trying to trigger a bite to break the dog to launch on its own ? THAT is what i never see being trained, unless you consider restraining it on lead a method of handler control, which i know you don't, since this is the opposite of handler control (a frustration and drive builder)......maybe there are training vids of this out there and i should just look for em ?


In the schH bark & hold the idea is for the dog to hold the man by barking and intimidation without touching him, as long as the man is passive (still). When the man raises his whip or moves to get away, the dog is correct if he reacts by immediately gripping him, that's the purpose of the exercise. If the dog were to do nothing while the man moves around, if it did not trigger a grip it really wouldn't be much of a dog, at least in my sport. When the man is still the dog doesn't touch him, when the man moves to get away or raises the whip, he gets tagged. When the handler says out the dog outs, and not before the command is really best in my opinion because I don't like a dog who is too quick to out.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

rick smith said:


> if true, a good example of what i DON'T like in sports ...
> there is no reason why a fleeing decoy should give a dog the green light


Sure there is. For a sport dog the reason is as simple as those are the rules for the exercise. Like them or not, we don't make the rules, but compete in the sports, so we train for those rules. To put it in a "real world" context think of a police dog who is guarding/escorting someone. If that person tries to escape, should the dog just sit there and watch them run away as long as the person isn't running towards the handler?



rick smith said:


> --- so once this IS solid, when do you now keep the dog in control when the decoy/helper is moving and trying to trigger a bite to break the dog to launch on its own ? THAT is what i never see being trained, unless you consider restraining it on lead a method of handler control, which i know you don't, since this is the opposite of handler control (a frustration and drive builder)......maybe there are training vids of this out there and i should just look for em ?


I think you aren't looking for the right training videos. Videos showing the teaching of a defense of handler, escort, or guard of object at certain levels (past the very beginning stages) are all going to show decoys who are trying to get the dog to launch/bite before it should. Also videos of the face attack, flee attack, attack with gun are going to show decoys trying to get the dog to break the line and go bite before it's told to.

And restraining a dog on a leash can definitely be a form of handler control. It's used all the time in various sports to keep a dog from getting dirty until they understand all the rules of the exercise they are doing. I was doing it in the guard of object video you mentioned earlier, to control my pup from leaving the basket to soon. I use it when we are working his defense of handler, to keep him from just running over and biting the decoy, while he learns to walk backwards with the decoy nearby, circle my body, etc. Or when we are working on the escort. Or outside of the bitework I'm using it right now to keep him with me during retrieves, the send away, etc so he doesn't go until I say "go". He brings enough drive to the exercises on his own, I don't want it to build more right now, I use it for guidance and control.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "To put it in a "real world" context think of a police dog who is guarding/escorting someone. If that person tries to escape, should the dog just sit there and watch them run away as long as the person isn't running towards the handler?"
imo, in a word .... YES  

first of all, the PSD won't be "sitting there" if he's escorting a prisoner or apprehended suspect, and a good dog will be ON him before he takes more than a step or two to flee....if he goes for the handler the dog WILL nail him immediately 
next, the handler is certainly capable of sending the dog, IF he feels it is necessary, (since that is the handler's job), and he should and probably WILL unless he is incapacitated...and then the PSD should be right next to him guarding him !!!
....i'm not a K9 LEO, so speak up guys, am i way off base here ??


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re; "And restraining a dog on a leash can definitely be a form of handler control. It's used all the time in various sports to keep a dog from getting dirty until they understand all the rules of the exercise they are doing."
- more like "dog control" to me, in the way you described doing it

of course there are safety reasons for working a dog on lead
but it mostly falls outside the realm of training technique unless you are using compulsion, and often just does what i said - increases and builds drive thru frustration...at least that has been my experience for the most part when working a dog in drive that way
- plus it is not related to marker work unless you specify where the markers are used in this type of lead work 

- but going back to my original Q's :
....I wanted to know how markers are used, not get explanations for a lot of different events that allow the dog to engage/bite by decoy triggered movements, and definitely, not when it involves guarding/defense of handler
- thought i was clear, but guess i wasn't

and of course i didn't write the rules either ... but that doesn't have to mean i think they all make sense 

the OVERALL goals of any bite sport, which again, is only my opinion, are to demonstrate the relationship between the handler and the dog, which is best shown by the CONTROL the handler has over the dog when under pressure, and that's why i tried to pinpoint when i had problems understanding and had never seen it trained specifically ... using markers

wth, guess it doesn't matter, but appreciate any answers and opinions to my Q's ... still learning material there


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

the best example i can think of that would show perfect handler/dog relations regarding engagement would be a late call off from a long send out ... to me that is a thing of beauty and teamwork that makes my hair stand up as much every bit as much as a take down....but that's just me 
- probably disappointing to many other spectators


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

rick smith said:


> the OVERALL goals of any bite sport, which again, is only my opinion, are to demonstrate the relationship between the handler and the dog, which is best shown by the CONTROL the handler has over the dog when under pressure, and that's why i tried to pinpoint when i had problems understanding and had never seen it trained specifically ... using markers


In my sport, control is exhibited in the secondary obedience during the grip work, but also the heart and courage is exhibited in grip work. The goal is NOT to demonstrate the relationship between handler and dog but to show the measure of the dog. At least that's what it was originally intended to do. 

Control is exhibited all throughout schutzhund, in many subtle and not so subtle ways. Blind search (because the dog knows the man is in the live blind but still must search where directed), back transport (helpers walking away but the dog must remain heeling with handler until the helper turns charges & raises his whip), side transport, the fact that the dog CAN'T grip while the helper is standing still, etc., all these things are about control. A call off is not the only way to display control, and it's not a part of my sport at this time, so it's immaterial for my sport.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

rick smith said:


> the best example i can think of that would show perfect handler/dog relations regarding engagement would be a late call off from a long send out ... to me that is a thing of beauty and teamwork that makes my hair stand up as much every bit as much as a take down....but that's just me
> - probably disappointing to many other spectators


What I like is the call offs in PSA. In one exercise, they'll have a call off with extra points from getting extra close if the dog passes a cone before the call off cue is given. In the following exercise, they will have a full long bite. OR they'll do it in reverse, with the actual bite coming first and then the call off coming second, you just don't know which you're going to get except day of trial. That's very cool to me.

Concerning the use of markers in my sport, either the handler or the decoy will give the marker, depending on a couple factors. For example, a week or two ago, we were doing some bitework with obedience with a dog we are teaching how to turn off/turn on and an out down for the guard using a wedge. The dog was back tied and the handler stood on the side with a leash with the decoy in front. The handler would mark for going all the way down with elbows touching and the reward was the bite. In other instances, the decoy marks and rewards for things like eye contact when doing a revier (instead of just barking at the sleeve) since they have better perspective than the handler of when the dog gives good eye contact.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

rick smith said:


> re: "To put it in a "real world" context think of a police dog who is guarding/escorting someone. If that person tries to escape, should the dog just sit there and watch them run away as long as the person isn't running towards the handler?"
> imo, in a word .... YES
> 
> first of all, the PSD won't be "sitting there" if he's escorting a prisoner or apprehended suspect, and a good dog will be ON him before he takes more than a step or two to flee....


I think you are contradicting yourself. I specifically said if the dog is guarding/escorting someone should they watch them run away if not commanded to bite. And you said "yes". But then you turned around and said if they are escorting someone, a good dog will be on them before they take even a step or two. 



rick smith said:


> re; "And restraining a dog on a leash can definitely be a form of handler control. It's used all the time in various sports to keep a dog from getting dirty until they understand all the rules of the exercise they are doing."
> - more like "dog control" to me, in the way you described doing it
> 
> of course there are safety reasons for working a dog on lead
> ...


Just because someone is using a leash and collar doesn't automatically mean they are using compulsion, although it could. I use them to guide my puppy where I want, then mark when he's in the right spot. It's not a correction, just me leading him to the correct position, not really any different then if I was using a food lure to get him there. Now if I corrected him into position that would be compulsion, but that doesn't mean I couldn't still mark it when he was correct. Quite a few of the people who describe training protection sports in a "purely positive" manner also describe walking the dog off the field to a crate or vehicle when it does something wrong, I'm going to assume they have a leash/collar on the dog so they can do this, otherwise short of physically picking the dog up and carrying them off the field I don't see how they could do it, short of turning that "walk to your punishment time" into a game with some sort of reward for the dog taking the walk. Course I'm not convinced that isn't compulsion either :-\"

Going back and re-reading your original post, I guess I missed what you were asking. I try to use markers as much as possible when teaching, but I do use compulsion later. Since I don't use only markers for training, I'm out of the discussion. I don't know anyone who uses only markers and no compulsion, physical manipulation, etc who is training for Ringsports and has achieved the higher levels. I know a few people who have said they have done it for Schutzhund.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Kadi wrote : "I try to use markers as much as possible when teaching, but I do use compulsion later."
.... now you might be the one contradicting yourself // lol //

"later" as in when ?? in the recent vid you posted training the beginnings of a guard of object, what i saw was a very young pup forcefully and clearly yanked off nearly every bite. didn't look to me like you "guided it" with a leash as in luring .... 
if that is "guidance" in your mind, ok ... but not the way i saw it  to me, pure compulsion; at a very early age and stage of training, not "later" 
...probably because he is a tuff little bugger and easier and quicker to "guide" him that way 

i'm beginning to believe markers are what people say they use, but not always follow thru with what they say 
ESPECIALLY when it comes to gripping and outing 

just another opinion, but i think you just consider the cup half full and i see it half empty regarding that part of the clip 
.... as always ymmv and we won't agree 
- but it is a PERFECT example of one person seeing one thing, and another watching it and seeing something entirely different 
- and i guess it doesn't make any difference if the finished product is the same


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

rick smith said:


> watching a recent clip brought this to my mind again ....
> 
> a little hard to describe in words....
> i've seen lots of vids/clips where a dog is pretty much allowed to bite and engage based on the helper/decoy movement....i don't see many where the dog is under handler control and then given a command to engage, except maybe on send outs and even a lot of those seem to be decoy/helper triggered rather than handler directed
> ...


I do alot of only bite when I" mark" training. I do not want the dog reacting to the helpers every movement. I also think any dog with any thing I would call drive, will still react with a bite when there is dramatic sudden change in the helpers behavior. I think there is a massive amount of benefit to this. I also thing that this needs to be taught by the handler in tug play first...and needs to be perfect with the handler prior to the helper showing up.

In fact I do alot of proofing with me giving the dog obedience commands and the helper cracking a whip, jumping around, and calling the dogs name. If the dog listens to it's impulses and goes for the helper....no bite, and has to start over. This takes forever to train...But in the end, the dog is bomb proof. I want the dog listening to me, not the helper. 

I see a lot of handlers who refuse to mark for the dog, because they are worried the dog will pay attention to them too much. but I see the same handlers bang the dog off for a call out, or an out without batting an eyelash. 

The problems I see with allowing a helper's movement to indicate if it's okay to bite or not for a high drive dog (for a low drive dog, it's the helper giving the indication all day long). is the dog becomes obsessed with the helpers movement. The only thing that now can give the handlers commands any type of relevantcy is pain. 

I


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

rick smith said:


> "later" as in when ?? in the recent vid you posted training the beginnings of a guard of object, what i saw was a very young pup forcefully and clearly yanked off nearly every bite. didn't look to me like you "guided it" with a leash as in luring ....


I never said I didn't use compulsion in that video, it's obvious I did. I also didn't call that "guidance", I think I was pretty clear in an earlier post there is a difference between guidance and correction.

_Just because someone is using a leash and collar doesn't automatically mean they are using compulsion, although it could._ _I use them to guide my puppy where I want, then mark when he's in the right spot. It's not a correction, just me leading him to the correct position, not really any different then if I was using a food lure to get him there. Now if I corrected him into position that would be compulsion, but that doesn't mean I couldn't still mark it when he was correct._

When we are working the escort I am guiding Ares. He knows how to escort once he's in position, but he's still not clear on how to get into that position all the time. So I will take the leash, or just his flat collar, and guide him into position, then mark when he's in the right spot.

Another example, I taught Ares sit, stand and down using markers and food rewards. That was the teaching. He's been solid on sit for awhile, stand is about 85% reliable. Down is only about 70%. When I tell him to sit now, if he doesn't he will get corrected. If he does, he gets rewarded. But I'm not teaching the behavior anymore, he knows it, now I'm proofing it. Stand and down are not corrected for, because he's not showing me that he understands the position 100%. So I'm still TEACHING them with markers and rewards. Later when I'm sure he knows what they are, I will introduce corrections if he doesn't take the position. 

Is the pup young, yes. Is that an early stage in the training, depends on what you call early. He was taught each piece of that exercise with markers and rewards, no force. However, once I feel he knows the behavior, ie "later", corrections will be introduced. That doesn't mean the right behavior isn't marked and rewarded though, I explained in the other thread, that was why the decoy stepped in quickly at one point. I marked the right behavior, and Ares recieved a reward in the form of a bite for it.



> - but it is a PERFECT example of one person seeing one thing, and another watching it and seeing something entirely different


Actually I think it's a perfect example of one person trying to claim another said something they didn't say. If there is some confusion regarding what I'm saying and what you are seeing, ask, don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Paul R. Konschak (Jun 10, 2010)

James Downey said:


> I do alot of only bite when I" mark" training. I do not want the dog reacting to the helpers every movement. I also think any dog with any thing I would call drive, will still react with a bite when there is dramatic sudden change in the helpers behavior. I think there is a massive amount of benefit to this. I also thing that this needs to be taught by the handler in tug play first...and needs to be perfect with the handler prior to the helper showing up.
> 
> In fact I do alot of proofing with me giving the dog obedience commands and the helper cracking a whip, jumping around, and calling the dogs name. If the dog listens to it's impulses and goes for the helper....no bite, and has to start over. This takes forever to train...But in the end, the dog is bomb proof. I want the dog listening to me, not the helper.
> 
> ...


At some point in dogs training it must bite without obedience commands. In both reattacks and the back transport, the dog must react to the decoy not the handler's commands.

In order to score excellent in the guarding the dog must be obsessive in watching the decoy 's movement

Paul


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Paul R. Konschak said:


> At some point in dogs training it must bite without obedience commands. In both reattacks and the back transport, the dog must react to the decoy not the handler's commands.
> 
> In order to score excellent in the guarding the dog must be obsessive in watching the decoy 's movement
> 
> Paul


exactly and in secondary obedience I don't like a dog who heels as if there is no helper on the field, a dog too focused on his handler. Might make for extra pretty ob but something is missing in the dog. During secondary ob the dog must obey but also must be focused on the helper, & when the helper either tries to cut & run or attack the dog must go to grip, not sit there staring at his handler waiting for a command. At least in my sport, other sports, other things to worry about, not my problem or concern.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Paul R. Konschak said:


> At some point in dogs training it must bite without obedience commands. In both reattacks and the back transport, the dog must react to the decoy not the handler's commands.
> 
> In order to score excellent in the guarding the dog must be obsessive in watching the decoy 's movement
> 
> Paul


I have never seen any dog that was trained using solely marks for biting in training, just sit there and wait for a mark in a trial, while the decoy threatens him. and if he did, he's not a very good dog, and the shitter in him will show up somewhere else In fact, it sucks after a few trials and they learn that they get to leave the handler on thier own. - At least for theMalinois, they wanna jump on the sleeve if they hear the decoy blink....you do not need to train that, In fact, I find I need to train a little of that out of em'.

And I don't what rule book you read, but mine does not say that. Mine says, attentive and actively guarding. Obsessed, You can get the look of it. but the dog who is always allowed to bite when the decoy moves....well, they start to look for only movement in the decoy...and your voice becomes the indicator of no bite. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxzTRfVgFJ0

At 2:18 the dog is actively and attentively guarding the ball...Waiting for the handlers mark. He looks "obsessed"...but barts commands still matter. But if you'd make movement of the ball the indicator of it's okay to bite....Do you think the dog would give a shit about bart?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> exactly and in secondary obedience I don't like a dog who heels as if there is no helper on the field, a dog too focused on his handler. Might make for extra pretty ob but something is missing in the dog. During secondary ob the dog must obey but also must be focused on the helper, & when the helper either tries to cut & run or attack the dog must go to grip, not sit there staring at his handler waiting for a command. At least in my sport, other sports, other things to worry about, not my problem or concern.


I agree, and like what you like.

I do not think those are training problems, that's a dog problem. Protection dogs are born.


I have trained this way. I have not had one problem with the dog focusing on the decoy. Mohawk trained Jack this way. I'd say anyone who has seen Jack would be proud of the dog, in his chartcter, drive, temperment, training and his success if they were thier dogs. 

I think the problems your insinuating this will cause are not real, and are not the mark of the training but more over a mark of the dog. 

and why do people call it secondary OB? is there primary OB? 

If you have a dog, that sits there when the helper tries to cut and run, or runs at you showing a threat. I assure you, it's not because your marking bites....it's because the dog has shit for drive.

I mean why would you listen to me.... I have trained dogs using this method. Do I have magic dogs, that are immune to this handler attentiveness that you speak will happen?... I mean 6 years old, and Addie never looks at me in protection.
Jack does not look at John, My mick...14 months old....not even a glance. That kind of charcter is in the dog.

I will say I saw a Klemm son who was awesome....he could shift from being a monster in protection, and go right into OB drive with only a command from the handler, then back to being a monster in protection. I think if you wanna big trials, You gotta have a little of that. Just what I think


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

you talking markers or commands? sorry I did not read all the posts I admit.

PSA has calloffs and strict OB with Decoys movements.

In PP and the "sport" PP training (for PP events like I used to host) many people train for strict holding of position regardless of "decoy" movements, often the decoy will run away, or jump around, and will come up to the dog and make quick movements, and the dog is expected to hold whatever position they are in..granted ALL the trainers may no do it, and ALL the handlers may not achieve it, and not all the training you see will show it, even if they are doing it...

I see that as holding position and biting on command, not sure what you are saying about "marker". THe marker to me would be the "yes, good (whatever)" or the "no" depending on what the dog does during the training...

but in the training I do...dog is given marker for holding position...and given (negative) marker for breaking position.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

James Downey said:


> I agree, and like what you like.
> 
> I do not think those are training problems, that's a dog problem. Protection dogs are born.
> 
> ...


 

Perhaps your post was not directed at me specifically, but if it was, I'm a tad bit confused because I don't think I insinuated anything at all, I spoke about what I like to see. How you get there is up to the handler, dog, helper, etc., and I have been around the block long enough to know there are many ways to the top of the mountain, James. That's great you have a particular method you like. I don't train the way you do, but I train the way that works for me and my dogs. Neither is necessarily better, (other than better for YOU and your dogs or better for ME and my dogs), just different strokes, buddy.


Secondary OB because it's not during "b", though as you know, schH is all about OB in all phases, it's secondary because the attention must be on the helper, since it's during "c".


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> If you have a dog, that sits there when the helper tries to cut and run, or runs at you showing a threat. I assure you, it's not because your marking bites....it's because the dog has shit for drive.


I assume this is related to your sport.

I have seen a shit ton of dogs over the years that would sit if "given the sit command" when a "decoy" offers bites, jukes, runs, or lunges at the dog, and wait for bite command. I would say those dogs had shit for drive, but are taught to control themselves, and obey a placement command...


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> you talking markers or commands? sorry I did not read all the posts I admit.
> 
> PSA has calloffs and strict OB with Decoys movements.
> 
> ...


I think with biting, the word given to allow a dog to bite is always a mark. dog preforms down, dog heres attack or okay....it's the same thing to the dog. With the dog biting on command for a long down....it's just a very well proofed well long down. The dog is still waiting for his marker, whether it be the word, attack, okay. The down is preformed on command, the bite is preformed on a mark.

The difference is only with type of reward schedule is implied. A dog that downs and is rewarded for preforming the down is an interval schedule, the down and then hold it....is done on a duration schedule, but in the end the handlers words are all still marks...at least I think that's how the dog sees it. I do not think the dogs get the difference between biting on command and biting on a mark. We make the disitiction but, the dog does not.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Yes, the higher levels of PSA are a good example for this. A PSA 2 or 3 level dog is certainly not lacking in drive. They know a dog at that level can bite. No question about that, if you can pass the PSA 1. It's bringing in the level of control. This is really super, super work. Way to go, Ariel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eXjb88npqw&list=UUELUA2YXTMDJyyDViDf9MkA&index=5&feature=plcp


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I assume this is related to your sport.
> 
> I have seen a shit ton of dogs over the years that would sit if "given the sit command" when a "decoy" offers bites, jukes, runs, or lunges at the dog, and wait for bite command. I would say those dogs had shit for drive, but are taught to control themselves, and obey a placement command...


I have seen it to. It's hard to tell which dogs are truely protection dogs, even the ones like Susan described that are completetly enthrawled with helper, as so it appears. 

But I bet you take a lot of those "Helper reactive dogs"....who are so "obsessed" with the helper and put them in the guard after the escape bite, and have the helper very, very slowly step back, and not make any sudden movements... the helper .could walk right off the field to thier car and leave the dog where he sits. Why? because the dog did not get his mark of the helper making his moves. I am willing to bet, that most Schutzhund dogs are like this. With the amount of training put into these dogs, they learn this stuff. So it's all par for the course. I think the guys who score big in Schutzhund protection are not the dogs with the best protection dog....it's the trainer with the best trained impulse control.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

James Downey said:


> I have seen it to. It's hard to tell which dogs are truely protection dogs, even the ones like Susan described that are completetly enthrawled with helper, as so it appears.
> 
> But I bet you take a lot of those "Helper reactive dogs"....who are so "obsessed" with the helper and put them in the guard after the escape bite, and have the helper very, very slowly step back, and not make any sudden movements... the helper .could walk right off the field to thier car and leave the dog where he sits. Why? because the dog did not get his mark of the helper making his moves. I am willing to bet, that most Schutzhund dogs are like this. With the amount of training put into these dogs, they learn this stuff. So it's all par for the course. I think the guys who score big in Schutzhund protection are not the dogs with the best protection dog....it's the trainer with the best trained impulse control.


JAMES: Did I piss in your cheerios and not realize it somewhere along the line?:razz: Is this why you continue to mischaractarize my posts? Otherwise I can't figure for the life of me how prefering dogs who pay attention to the helper turns into dogs that are completely enthrwaled with the helper.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> JAMES: Did I piss in your cheerios and not realize it somewhere along the line?:razz: Is this why you continue to mischaractarize my posts?


No, I was talking to Joby on that last one.

and I think a lot may have gotten lost in translation on your post in response to paul....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick, having trained Schutzhund with OC and markers I can say we never worked on passive bites with markers. It goes against everything in the sport but I can't see why it would work. 
As for outs with markers, yes, absolutely. The dog outs on command, gets a marker "yes" and is rewarded with a re engagement with the helper. Even then the helper will move with the marker from the handler.
In the early training the enthusiastic dog will ofter try and engage with no movement from the helper but, as mentioned, that's not productive to that particular training.


----------



## Paul R. Konschak (Jun 10, 2010)

James Downey said:


> I have never seen any dog that was trained using solely marks for biting in training, just sit there and wait for a mark in a trial, while the decoy threatens him. and if he did, he's not a very good dog, and the shitter in him will show up somewhere else In fact, it sucks after a few trials and they learn that they get to leave the handler on thier own. - At least for theMalinois, they wanna jump on the sleeve if they hear the decoy blink....you do not need to train that, In fact, I find I need to train a little of that out of em'.
> 
> And I don't what rule book you read, but mine does not say that. Mine says, attentive and actively guarding. Obsessed, You can get the look of it. but the dog who is always allowed to bite when the decoy moves....well, they start to look for only movement in the decoy...and your voice becomes the indicator of no bite.
> 
> ...


Please show me protection video at a world championship where the handler is giving commands fo the dog to bite and a dog that does not have obsessive guarding who scored excellent. PLEASE reread my original post. Just because the dog is obsessed with the decoy does not mean the dog will not listen immediately to the handler.

Paul


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I think with biting, the word given to allow a dog to bite is always a mark. dog preforms down, dog heres attack or okay....it's the same thing to the dog. With the dog biting on command for a long down....it's just a very well proofed well long down. The dog is still waiting for his marker, whether it be the word, attack, okay. The down is preformed on command, the bite is preformed on a mark.
> 
> The difference is only with type of reward schedule is implied. A dog that downs and is rewarded for preforming the down is an interval schedule, the down and then hold it....is done on a duration schedule, but in the end the handlers words are all still marks...at least I think that's how the dog sees it. I do not think the dogs get the difference between biting on command and biting on a mark. We make the disitiction but, the dog does not.


I see what you are saying, and can agree with what you are saying in the context that you are saying it in...but I just dont agree that it is *always* a "mark".

It can also be viewed as a command.



I have done work for others (stranger to the dog) and have gotten help from others (strangers to the dog) in training "scenario training", attempting to create "realistic" scenarios, as realistic as possible anyhow.

like taking the dog for a walk, in a crowded park, and commanding the dog to bite a very passive random stranger that is just sitting on a park bench that says something (a verbal threat) in a normal tone of voice, with hidden equipment.

The dog does not initially see this as a training exercise and is not expecting a bite (reward or otherwise) to occur. Just happens out of the blue, during a normal activity the dog does..There is as little "training scenario" influence as possible, and no movements or yelling or physical cues from the "helper" given.

same goes for muzzle training, I often have my dog in muzzle, at least 4-5 times a week.. pretty much everywhere at one time or another, petsmart, the park, the vet,on walks, at the lake...etc...etc...so the dog does not associate the muzzle with "training" for bitework, or muzzle work...dog is in muzzle probably 25% of the time I am out walking her, or going somewhere with her...it is just like wearing a collar to her, I "think"...

every once in a while, a few times a year on average... when I can get a new volunteer, I will, out of the blue, command the dog to attack the person, who is just walking, the dog is not expecting this to happen,..often while NOT under any placement command or formal OB... but just on a walk. 

There are of course other times, when the "training" situation in much more obvious to the dog, but there are situations I dont see the bite or command to attack in a muzzle, as a "marker"


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Paul R. Konschak said:


> Please show me protection video at a world championship where the handler is giving commands fo the dog to bite and a dog that does not have obsessive guarding who scored excellent. PLEASE reread my original post. Just because the dog is obsessed with the decoy does not mean the dog will not listen immediately to the handler.
> 
> Paul


 
I guess this statement through me off.

"At some point in dogs training it must bite without obedience commands. In both reattacks and the back transport, the dog must react to the decoy not the handler's commands."

I guess I took "at some point in the dogs training" that you were stating the dog would have to be trained without the handlers commands, and trained to bite on the decoys movement.

but as of now We are now arguing the same side of the coin.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I see what you are saying, and can agree with what you are saying in the context that you are saying it in...but I just dont agree that it is *always* a "mark".
> 
> It can also be viewed as a command.
> 
> ...


 
The thing that makes "the word" a mark....because no matter where you are, what your doing...Biting is a rewarding behavior for the dog. 

If I click randomly taking my dog for a walk, with my dog not expecting it...it's still a mark. Even if I am not marking anything in particular. The word attack, okay, a click....If the dog has associated that "mark" with the access to a reward....that's a conditioned stimulus. A mark. No matter when or where you do it.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

So then you differentiate the cue word/mark to bite (because it's rewarding) with just a normal cue then, like just a sit, even if they get rewarded afterwards for sit? I think of saying the p-word (cause you can't say that in IPO anymore, amiright?) as a command and a mark/click as something different, but I suppose to the dog, it means the same thing in the end for that particular exercise. Which is why not saying packen or whatever in IPO is silly. You could probably say guacamole and the dog will go down the field for the courage test. Just more PC?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> The thing that makes "the word" a mark....because no matter where you are, what your doing...Biting is a rewarding behavior for the dog.
> 
> If I click randomly taking my dog for a walk, with my dog not expecting it...it's still a mark. Even if I am not marking anything in particular. The word attack, okay, a click....If the dog has associated that "mark" with the access to a reward....that's a conditioned stimulus. A mark. No matter when or where you do it.


Ok.. I can see what you are saying, I just think the mark is the "good" after complying with the command. 

SO would you call it a mark, if you command the dog to alert aggressively and it does, or if you send it to Bark and hold, or to "guard" an object, vehicle, or space? and there is NO bite given?

IF so, it seems every command is also a mark then? if it is something the dog enjoys, that is commanded, or only if a bite is given....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The "mark" is just the acknowledgement to the dog that it performed correctly and will now get it's reward. As James said, that reward is the bite in this instance.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> The "mark" is just the acknowledgement to the dog that it performed correctly and will now get it's reward. As James said, that reward is the bite in this instance.



what if the job it performed correctly was the bite..and was not performing any other job except biting?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

If it wasn't performing any other job but biting ( long line with helper working the dog) then I don't see where a marker is needed.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> If it wasn't performing any other job but biting ( long line with helper working the dog) then I don't see where a marker is needed.


I have seen people mark a style of biting. A regrip fuller, or a calm grip, etc.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I have seen people mark a style of biting. A regrip fuller, or a calm grip, etc.


Even people who don't think they are marker training do this from what I have seen.

As an example, dog is biting decoy and decoy is engaging dog....

Dog is given an opportunity by decoy to "regrip" or push in....

Decoy or handler can mark this with a word, "good dog" "yes" what ever they use to praise the dog..

And the further reward could be the decoy yielding to the dog.....or ramping the fight back up...what ever the dog likes/needs

Could be slipping the sleeve when the dog is calm....

Is this the kind of thing you were talking about Kadi?


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

rick smith said:


> Tx so far ....
> 
> 
> Ed...regarding a passive decoy engagement ... roger that ... for sure, that would be a necessary start point; Tx for relating that ONE .... but would the same dog also remain under control if the decoy moved and offered the sleeve
> ...


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Is this the kind of thing you were talking about Kadi?


Yes


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I have seen people mark a style of biting. A regrip fuller, or a calm grip, etc.



I can agree with that. I was understanding that the dog was "just biting" but in the scenario that they are actually working to fix a grip then it makes sense.
I stand corrected!


----------



## Ryan Venables (Sep 15, 2010)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I have seen people mark a style of biting. A regrip fuller, or a calm grip, etc.


Kadi, I'm trying exactly to do this. My female is pretty noisy on the bite, she actually barks while biting when she's really ramped up, and I'm really trying to train that out of her. With her, the lines are a definite factor, but I'm sure since she is my first competition dog that it was my training as well that has introduced the noise. Her grips are always calm (and by this I mean not chewy) and full. But damn if she doesn't bark while she's on somebody's leg.

Here is an example of what I'm trying to do w/ her right now. I'm kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. She's 4, been doing bite work for 2 years, I want to train the barking while biting out of her, but she's also ready for a FR1 and (the short) trialling season is coming upon us... we'll see where I get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqA-YlLfGIU&list=UUDejdpxIw1iguia92memG8g&index=1&feature=plcp


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

I decoyed a dog one time. He was trained to do mondio French ring and campange. I did the defence. Walked in slow and hit the guy when the dog was lookking at the handler. I kept walking slow and away from the handler. The dog didnt bite. I thought sweet just stole the defence. All of a sudden bam I got bit. So I talked to him after and found out that he has taught his dog that when he opens his hand from a fist the dog gets to bite. Kind of cheating in a trial but it did work and he never got caught and his dog has never lost a defence in any of the sports.


----------

