# Sali vid, doing it just for the reward.



## Matt Vandart

I did this vid because of something i was pondering about as a result of other peoples comments (in real life) about 'That's good but dogs will do anything for a treat/ball' which is code for "I'm a lazy twat who can't be arsed to train my dog"
I thought to myself well then how can I test this and came up with this idea. Have a squint at the vid and lemme know. If you can think of another way of testing this please say and I will give it a whirl. Please note: this is not an 'anti compulsion/correction' vid. It is merely to experiment with what is happening. I literally came up with the idea, took Sali to the field and tried it out no testing first what you see is what happened. 
I was not looking for point scoring IPO stuff here just testing the hypothesis. Also note Sali is no longer being trained for IPO/obedience trial type 'attention heeling' so I'm not bothered about the heeling position.
Thanks 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atz8wdvee9M


----------



## Sarah Platts

This is me thinking out loud.......
I wonder if the idea would be better done with a dog that is not already "trained". Or by having the dog do something that after a time the dog would stop doing you didn't have the reward. Or never had the reward in the first place. 

I've done some stuff, trying to entice the dog to do something where I was more than willing to treat or toy reward if the dog would just do it (whatever it was) and I've had the dog refuse. Now if the dog wanted that food (or the reward) then I would have expected the dog to do whatever. But the dog basically gave me the 1 and a half toe salute and went on his way. So I don't think my dogs do stuff just for the reward. I think its a multi-phase thing of getting out and doing something, doing it with you, having the interaction with you, and getting a little extra something on the side.

Anyway, interesting idea.


----------



## John Ly

if you're trying to test if the dog will work without the reward then you should not have the ball anywhere in sight. or am i missing something?


----------



## Bob Scott

I've had more then a couple of dogs that I believe would comply for nothing more then a scratch behind the ear.

My present 8 yr old GSD is one. I can only praise him quietly or he goes ballistic and keep repeating the behavior for an other enthusiastic scratch.

The problem is he looses concentration when this happens because he becomes so focused on getting me to play.


----------



## Matt Vandart

John Ly said:


> if you're trying to test if the dog will work without the reward then you should not have the ball anywhere in sight. or am i missing something?


Yes you are John. I chose to give her the ball specifically so that she didn't think I had the ball in my pocket or that any reward was 'coming' i have discussed with a few buddies this video and have decided to do another vid. In this vid I will not throw the ball at any time which seems to be a sticking point but at that point I had considered the test over really. Also I will do it in a place where she is not used to doing such behaviors. 
Thanks for the replies party people. 
Bob: I have another dog the black maliX he will do anything for a pat too 
One of my dobes will do stuff and her favorite reward is being pushed about, lol


----------



## Chip Blasiole

The argument could be made that your were simply using continuous reinforcement. The other thing to consider is that learning is not really occurring because your dog already knows the behaviors you are asking for.


----------



## rick smith

first off, it's nice to see someone experiment a new idea or concept

next...
- u wrote : "'That's good but dogs will do anything for a treat/ball' which is code for "I'm a lazy twat who can't be arsed to train my dog"
- i understand what you wrote but not how it becomes the issue you are going to test 

in other words ... what is it exactly that you are testing ? that dogs will NOT do anything for a treat or ball, or that dogs WILL do things for other reasons than to get a ball/treat ?

before i post my suggestions, a lead in :

most things dogs "do" are instinctual ... hard wired genetics
- they do not make decisions about them they just do them. with that said, environmental conditions 'may' make them alter their instincts and that CAN be considered a learned behavior (environmentally caused, not human taught of course)

now if you are talking "trained responses", you are mainly talking about something a dog will NOT do instinctually, namely something the (human) handler wants it to do. 

to accomplish this the human usually tries to find something the dog wants that will motivate it to do what they want.
most common 'inducements' :
- praise
- toys
- food
- escaping from an uncomfortable stimulus
- being physically manipulated to do it with no other option
- and a few other ways ...

"training" is the continued repetitions of these 'motivators'
- and the trained response is when the dog does it with only a verbal a physical signal and no longer needs 'inducements' or motivators

are we on the same page so far ?

if so i'll get to the point of my suggestions on testing this

if this analysis is deeper than you want to consider ... not a problem


----------



## Christopher Smith

A Welshman speaking French and the sun shining in Wales. Now I've seen everything!

It's not just the ball that is the reward. The interaction with the handler is also the reward. And if trained properly it is a bigger reward than the ball. 

I don't think this proves your hypothesis. But it will win in a bar discussion with folks that don't understand how the ball is used in training.


----------



## Matt Vandart

HAHAHAH! you're correct Chris!

I agree the ball is the secondary reinforcer and of lower value, you can tell from the lackadaisical performance. Having said that although I agree and I don't think it satisfies the concept that dogs will manifest behaviours for no reward, I don't believe that idea for one minute anyway, it does sorta satisfy the concept of "she will do the behavior despite being already in possession of the 'material' reward" and therefore it will shut the people up though so that's cool 

I have now become interested in the concept of proofing is a dog really ever 'proofed'? Especially for force free trained dogs.

I did another vid and and interesting thing occurred which occurred in the first vid but is more apparent in the second vid. 

She has the general appearance and attitude of a dog trained with ham fisted compulsive training methods which I found interesting and something worth wondering about what is going on. I read somewhere that witholding reward, which is essentially what I am doing, has the same effect, emotionally, as positive punishment. What do you guys think?

Here's the vid, anyone who knows the history of Sali will quickly observe that this kind of environment used to be a big deal for this dog and I have been classically conditioned to be edgey, despite not needing to be anymore, this is clear in MY behaviour and body language which was quite interesting to see for me.

I moved to this setting as a result of a comment on facebook which was along the lines of "I would rather see this not in an environment where she is used to doing such behaviors" to which i thought fair point. I'm trying to skim down the cues for OB work.

Anyway, vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FRWKgVZkd0


----------



## John Ly

i dont think theres any question a dog will still work for the handler even after it's been paid. i think the real question is will the dog still look as flashy if it's been paid?


----------



## rick smith

good work
amazing what happens when you start working with a dog in public and trust it

i watched with no sound so i have no idea what you were saying but what i saw was a guy walking his dog in public doing stuff, and both were much less reactive than what i had seen before

for what it's worth, i could not tell a reward was being withheld all the time

of course the handler has to be vigilant and in control ... 
- but not paranoid and ham fisted; which i didn't see in this session

all dogs should be worked in the real world because that's where they belong and i think Sali gets more benefit that way too
- one of the only ways to get impulse control

when you can interact with strangers and strange inanimate objects the proofing is done...and no, that doesn't mean petting sessions for any lookie loo that is googling over you and the dog //lol//

so//////what were you 'testing' and why do you think interacting with a dog is a reward for the dog ????


----------



## Bob Scott

Christopher said

"It's not just the ball that is the reward. The interaction with the handler is also the reward. And if trained properly it is a bigger reward than the ball."



The perfect reason to use a tug as a reward. The interaction with the handler.

A ball crazy dog may no longer need the handler once it gets the ball. 

Of course a dog driven to retrieve can be the exception to this because it knows the handler will toss the ball again IF it knows to brings the ball back.


----------



## Matt Vandart

John Ly said:


> i dont think theres any question a dog will still work for the handler even after it's been paid. i think the real question is will the dog still look as flashy if it's been paid?


Yah, nail on the head dude


----------



## Christopher Smith

Bob Scott said:


> Christopher said
> 
> "It's not just the ball that is the reward. The interaction with the handler is also the reward. And if trained properly it is a bigger reward than the ball."
> 
> 
> 
> The perfect reason to use a tug as a reward. The interaction with the handler.
> 
> A ball crazy dog may no longer need the handler once it gets the ball.
> 
> Of course a dog driven to retrieve can be the exception to this because it knows the handler will toss the ball again IF it knows to brings the ball back.


I get what you are saying, but I don't think the type of toy matters at all. I think it's the way you play with the dog and your relationship that really matters.


----------



## rick smith

Bob
i'm assuming you were referring to the fact that tugging is interactive compared to giving a dog a ball, kong or whatever

many people can/do tug with a ball ... on a rope
used in that manner, it's as interactive as a tug

been there, done that and it's pita for me and i don't use em, but a lot of people love that style

regardless, the toy IS the reward not the interaction. 'interaction' is simply how effectively the toy is used....not a reward by itself


----------



## Sarah Platts

rick smith said:


> regardless, the toy IS the reward not the interaction. 'interaction' is simply how effectively the toy is used....not a reward by itself


This is inaccurate. At least for most dogs. Dogs are pack animals. They want and desire interaction with others otherwise they would just scatter and be a bunch of solitary blokes.

The toy is used as the means to cause an interaction between the dog and handler. Its the device by which play can be initiated. Sure you could just give a ball or tug to the dog and they *may* be happy with that but they are MORE happy when someone grabs the end and plays with them. I've seen lots of dogs take their toy up to someone and use it as a means to engage that person to grab it and play with them. If it was *just* the toy, then they would not do that. They want and crave that interaction. And what about dogs that are not rewarded by a toy? I've seen some that really don't work for a toy (or food for that matter) but just want to be out with their person doing something. 

I think that people who develop a deep bond and have sympatico working relationship with their dogs see the interaction/reward relationship more than someone who doesn't.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Hmm, I'll try it with a tug


----------



## Bob Scott

Christopher Smith said:


> I get what you are saying, but I don't think the type of toy matters at all. I think it's the way you play with the dog and your relationship that really matters.



Agree 100%

This is why I said a dog that is very possessive no longer needs the handler once it has the ball.

I should have added that a dog taught to retrieve, no matter how possessive will soon learn that bringing the ball back can continue the game/reward. That's interaction. 

I personally don't believe a possessive dog, with no retrieve, will need that interaction if it hasn't been properly trained to retrieve. It has what it wants an you are no longer in the equation. 

I want to be a part of that reward as opposed to being just a vending machine for the reward. 

Maybe not the same thing but I've always liked to selected a dog that has a natural retrieve.

FOR ME that indicates a dog more willing to work with the handler.


----------



## Joby Becker

I am not so sure this fits what you are trying to show.

you have already stated you did not use only treat or toys or rewards based training solely to train this dog, which in reality negates the validity of the argument in the case of your dog, unless I misunderstood the argument.

Dogs do shit without a ball or toy or food because they are trained / conditioned to a fairly high degree, and the behaviors are proofed and or secured.

I have a friend that trains pretty much yank and crank with his dogs, he uses that phrase "a dog will do anything for a treat or a toy". I usually tell him "I know, thats why I use them"..

I will also use the phrase myself, usually in regards to talking about an average pet type dog that has been to the local training schools for obedience, the ones that do not use any form of corrective devices or methods.

I train a decent amount of dogs that are in this position, they have "learned" the commands.

I ask the people to show me what the dog knows, and how its "obedience" is, more than 1/2 the time, they will actually get the treats out first, or the toy, and then attempt to show me what the dogs "obedience" is like...lol

Many times I then use the line "a dog will do anything for a treat" and explain the difference to the person between a dog knowing and understanding the commands given, and performing the actions for treats or toys, and what obedience means to me, meaning the dog obeys and performs the behaviors expected when told to. I explain that obedience is compliance. and explain in most cases that their dogs do in fact know to some degree what most of the commands given mean, which is evident that they will do them in the presence of treats.

Then I usually will have the people show me the same things in a different environment and without the treats or toys, and explain to them that the previous training taught the dogs what the commands meant for the most part, but did not do much for the conditioning, proofing and securing stages of the training. For most pet dog owners and pet dogs , it is my belief that it is a very rare case indeed that these positive only methods produce a well behaved properly conditioned dog that is what most of us look at as an "obedience trained" dog most of the dogs will be confused, not proofed properly in context and environment, just plain don't comply, whatever it is, and in my opinion a big part of this is because the trainers that the people are going to are " positive only" type trainers, as it is pretty consistent that dogs coming out of these training programs will have most of the issues I mentioned, there is something missing, and usually in my opinion that thing that is missing is "consequences for non-compliance"

I hate sometimes showing that proud person that shows me 5-6 commands with their dog and some treats, in their living room, that their dog is not really trained much at all. that he knows how to get treats from them in the living room...so in effect he has trained the owners 

back to your point Matt, you recommend a healthy dose of various methods, not only purely "motivational" and said that it was a complete waste of time with Salit taking that approach.. you also have obviously done a fair amount of training, repetition etc, which has gone a long way to proofing and securing certain things, so with your dog it has gone beyond doing it for the physical reward..

my last dog I used to put tug in her mouth and then go out and do "OB" while walking, she did not chew on the tug as much as sali seems to do, but would shake her head occasionally, I think she did most things just as well already having the toy, after a time of it though she would start to get pushy with it, growling a lot and trying to get me more involved, which was fine for me, it was pretty funny.

the use of rewards is obviously a big part of many training approaches, depending on the dogs and the people, and the behaviors required they may or may not be a big part of it at all though, I think most everyone will agree that the learning of the behaviors is greatly accelerated with the use of rewards based training, but that does not also equate to a dog that complies with commands consistently, in many cases.


----------



## Bob Scott

"Many times I then use the line "a dog will do anything for a treat" and explain the difference to the person between a dog knowing and understanding the commands given, and performing the actions for treats or toys, and what obedience means to me, meaning the dog obeys and performs the behaviors expected when told to. I explain that obedience is compliance. and explain in most cases that their dogs do in fact know to some degree what most of the commands given mean, which is evident that they will do them in the presence of treats."


I don't know if a dog that needs the treat present to perform the behavior truly knows the behavior.

If the dog hasn't been weaned off the treat properly then that treat is still a part of the behavior. 

Is it "refusing" the command or it just doesn't understand what you want since it hasn't been proofed off of the treat part of the training

That's splitting hairs just a bit but I can't blame a dog for refusing the command IF it hasn't been trained properly with the treat.

I don't look at it as a dog being stubborn or flipping me off. It just hasn't been properly trained.

No different, to me, then a dog that hasn't been trained properly with a leash, prong, e-collar. 

Take it off the leash before off leash work is proofed. Can it be consistent in the behavior without the presence of the leash? I don't think so. 

Again splitting hairs but I think this is a big failure in treat training AND traditional training.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Thanks for the replies 

I had no agenda to 'prove' or 'disprove' the idea a dog will do stuff for fck all, the whole purpose is to attempt to see what is really going on. 

The people I am referring to who say " a dog will do anything for a treat/ball " are not people who train dogs or even their own dogs, they are the people who's dogs do what they please, that's why it's such a weird thing for them to say. They are not saying it in a situation as you describe Joby they are literally saying out of spite/guilt/pig headedness/weirdness/insanity/insecurity/not getting a shag who knows lol.


----------



## Joby Becker

Bob Scott said:


> "Many times I then use the line "a dog will do anything for a treat" and explain the difference to the person between a dog knowing and understanding the commands given, and performing the actions for treats or toys, and what obedience means to me, meaning the dog obeys and performs the behaviors expected when told to. I explain that obedience is compliance. and explain in most cases that their dogs do in fact know to some degree what most of the commands given mean, which is evident that they will do them in the presence of treats."
> 
> 
> I don't know if a dog that needs the treat present to perform the behavior truly knows the behavior.
> 
> If the dog hasn't been weaned off the treat properly then that treat is still a part of the behavior.
> 
> Is it "refusing" the command or it just doesn't understand what you want since it hasn't been proofed off of the treat part of the training
> 
> That's splitting hairs just a bit but I can't blame a dog for refusing the command IF it hasn't been trained properly with the treat.
> 
> I don't look at it as a dog being stubborn or flipping me off. It just hasn't been properly trained.
> 
> No different, to me, then a dog that hasn't been trained properly with a leash, prong, e-collar.
> 
> Take it off the leash before off leash work is proofed. Can it be consistent in the behavior without the presence of the leash? I don't think so.
> 
> Again splitting hairs but I think this is a big failure in treat training AND traditional training.


i see your point and agree for the most part. I dont fault the dog at all.
the only thing I can say is that we all know its a training/people problem. its almost never the dogs fault in reality...

in many cases though it is also a lack of respect and lack of consequences combined with incomplete training, which is evident when I take the leash and the dog is performing 100 times better than with the owner after only a short period of time during the first encounter with the dog..

I just took a guys dog for a walk last week, was gone about a 1/2 hour, when I got back he could not believe it was his dog...lol


----------



## rick smith

i try to keep it simple
- training is setting the dog up to succeed 
- proofing is setting it up to fail

- corrections come after proofing gets compliance 90%. severity of correction is inversely proportional to the trained response. (the easier the behavior, the harsher the correction for non compliance)
**never ruined a bond with a dog doing it this way //lol//

regarding rewards, i think almost every dog on the planet is like a whore. the better you pay them the better they perform.

which of course has very little to do with this thread //lol//


----------



## Bob Scott

Joby said

"I just took a guys dog for a walk last week, was gone about a 1/2 hour, when I got back he could not believe it was his dog...lol"



I saw this often when I was teaching basic ob classes.

My take on it is pretty simple

The average pet dog that gets away with anything at home has an owner that has no clue about leadership, respect, whatever you want to call it.

The dog doesn't know me/any trainer simply learns quickly that I won't allow the antics. 

On the first night of training I often looked for the most disobedient dog in the class and took it for a couple of mins. It didn't take long and the dog would be calm and quiet at my side. 

Am I that good? Maye not but the dog was smart enough that it stopped it's bs.


----------



## rick smith

sorry Matt; nothing to do with your testing but the thread has taken a turn i would rather stay with.....

taking the reins of an out of control dog and changing its attitude by giving it no options to act up or self satisfy doesn't really fall into the category of training ... at least for me

when i do that i try and give the lead back to the owner quickly and watch how fast the dog reverts to its normal behavior. that will often tell you how motivated the owner/handler is to learn 

i only spend a lot of 'one on one' time for a dog who has really obsessive, ingrained bad behaviors, and i only do it when the owner/handler is removed. but as SOON as there is good improvement i want the owner/handler back in close proximity to the dog. 
- i realize that is the opposite of how a lot of trainers work. they want the owners away from the dog because of the negative vibes the owner gives off. i feel exactly the opposite. it is ALWAYS easier to work the dog away from the owner, but the dog won't change until it's back with the owner. plus, the bond with me has NO relevance compared to the bond with the owner; which is all that matters

Bob.....
- if you can take the lead and quickly teach it a nice tucked sit, or a down w/ no forward/aft shoulder movement, or a stand from a down with no creep, or short recall to a heel position, etc etc. 
- that would make you a super trainer in my book 

obviously if a dog has no impulse control it is harder to train because it is not focused and paying attention to the handler.
- but teaching new behaviors and getting control of the dog are two separate issues. control always comes first.
- if the dog is social and just a typical spoiled shit, it's easy
- a dog with "issues" is a different case and often requires a different approach than just "taking the reins". OF COURSE i know there will be those who say this is BS and you need to treat all dogs the same. but for me it has been different 

it was mentioned how many dogs will bring a toy and drop it in front of the handler to solicit play.
- i have worked with two that i can remember WELL who would do the same. but it was to see if the handler would try and take 'their' toy \\/
- not all dogs are created equal 

i'm interested to know how you guys determine what you want to do with the dog one on one and when you bring the owner/handler back to the dog. it's not as cut and dried simple as i expect the answers will be
(such as, "i demo and then ask the owner to try the same", etc etc.....)

it also depends on what perspective you take. my toughest question is often whether to base it on the dog or the owner. is it the owner's lack of hand eye coordination and timing or is it the dog's level of obsession that is preventing success ?
- over the years i have changed the way i view this and am curious how others make that decision; or if they consider both sides of the coin

again.....sorry Matt; nothing to do with Sali and balls but once a thread goes off i decided i might as well throw in my .02 too and go with it //lol//


----------



## rick smith

one point that can be applicable to Matt and others; or at least i think it might be 

when you train with a lot of different people and a lot of different dogs you CANNOT take the same approach with all

you must keep it "shits and giggles" fun or the owners and dog lose motivation, but you also have to make it serious or you are just being an entertainer, not a trainer, and certainly not a professional one who is getting paid to deliver results

i think this dilemma applies to personal dogs too
how much fun and how much serious and how and when to mix the two is always the bottom line.
- get the proportions out of whack and you get nowhere fast 

focus only on having fun and you are leaving too much to chance. 
- plus, proofing is never as fun as the training //lol//
focus on too much "serious" and you can break many dogs, or get a finished dog who will perform but not really enjoy their work


----------



## Matt Vandart




----------



## Matt Vandart

Maybe interesting point, today I tried it with a 'ball on a rope' and she wasn't interested in it at all, just spat it out, did the behaviors just not interested in the item. 
this is really weird as it is Sali's FAVORITE handler interaction tool by a long long stretch.
Any ideas on that one? thanks


----------



## Bob Scott

Have you worked with a ball on a rope before?

It may just be the case of bringing up the dog's drive for the ball on a rope.
Lots of game playing and missing enough and letting the dog have the ball enough to build/keep the drive up. 

If it's new to the dog some dogs "think" to much about the particular toy.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Yes dude, it's her favorite object


----------



## Bob Scott

if it's her favorite handler interaction tool and she just spit it out then it is a quiz!

Was she still engaged with you?


----------



## Nicole Stark

Matt, is she intact? I'm just wondering because … well, it's probably obvious why I responded as I did to your question. 

Bob, I imagine she was still engaged with him. I can't see Matt asking the question otherwise, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


----------



## rick smith

Sali to Matt
"dood, when are u going to get the memo ? wtf r u doing ? i'm a mal. i'm not a golden that likes to carry their treat bag around. i like to grab bite fight and chew on stuff ](*,) " //lol//


----------



## susan tuck

Matt Vandart said:


> Maybe interesting point, today I tried it with a 'ball on a rope' and she wasn't interested in it at all, just spat it out, did the behaviors just not interested in the item.
> this is really weird as it is Sali's FAVORITE handler interaction tool by a long long stretch.
> Any ideas on that one? thanks


 key words "handler interaction tool". It's no fun without you interacting with it and her....which is a good thing!


----------



## Nicole Stark

susan tuck said:


> key words "handler interaction tool". It's no fun without you interacting with it and her....which is a good thing!


For sure. It didn't occur to me that he'd put that question out there for the obvious to be stated but maybe he did because he was trying to make a point.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Yeah she stayed engaged but usually she tries jumps on me and tries to shove it in my hands to play tug, it is interesting indeed.


----------



## Bob Scott

Then the question is why did she loose interest?

Something had to change. :-k:-k:-k:-k


----------



## Nicole Stark

Bob Scott said:


> Then the question is why did she loose interest?
> 
> Something had to change. :-k:-k:-k:-k


That's why I asked him if she was intact. 

Course, I've seen my typically ridiculously fast, greedy eating Dutch leave or not go to a bowl of food at all simply because she'd prefer social interaction over eating.


----------



## Bob Scott

:-o That would certainly change my attitude about playing. 

I've only had 3-4 dogs that I had spayed or neutered.

I've never noticed any change in temperament, attitude, etc.

Possibly because all were done after they were older because of health issues? :-k


----------



## rick smith

if i threw my Ecollar my dog would retrieve it


----------



## Nicole Stark

rick smith said:


> if i threw my Ecollar my dog would retrieve it


Yeah? Interesting notion. Let's see that.


----------



## Bob Scott

If used correctly there would be no reason for the dog not to retrieve it.

Just a guess on my part since I've never had a reason to use one.


----------



## Matt Vandart

rick smith said:


> if i threw my Ecollar my dog would retrieve it


Is this meant to be for a different thread?


----------



## rick smith

re : "Is this meant to be for a different thread?"
.....No


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Bob Scott said:


> If used correctly there would be no reason for the dog not to retrieve it.
> 
> Just a guess on my part since I've never had a reason to use one.


Bob, I get what you are thinking but I would say, if I had taught my dog correctly to retrieve he would even retrieve *anything.*


----------



## leslie cassian

If it were light enough, I could post video, but a brief experiment with both dogs proved that they will hold and pick up an ecollar. There was some issue with being unsure of what part to grab to give it to me if it was on the ground, but no more than I would expect with any slightly awkward and unfamiliar object. Then again, I ask my dogs to hold all manner of odd objects just because they like doing goofy things for cookies. To them, it would seem that the ecollar is no more significant than anything else I ask them to hold.


----------



## Bob Scott

Gillian Schuler said:


> Bob, I get what you are thinking but I would say, if I had taught my dog correctly to retrieve he would even retrieve *anything.*



100% agree that if I toss it they WILL retrieve it.

My thoughts, as you probably guessed, is that used improperly trained then retrieve of a collar may not be as enthusiastic. 

My #2 GSD was always to possessive for a natural retrieve. I taught it to him with markers and no physical corrections.

He now LOVES the game and Will retrieve anything but his initial enthusiasm wasn't the same as retrieving a tug, kong, something he likes.

He eventually learned it all keeps the game going so all retrieves have become a game.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Can some one please explain where the retrieving an e-collar came from?


----------



## leslie cassian

Hey look! Over here! Ronan holding an ecollar. Evidence that he is so well trained he will do anything I make him, or maybe just that even though I am one of those evil dog trainers that may have at one time put an ecollar on my dog for training, it has not scarred him for life, or maybe just another cute picture of my dogs...


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Like the photo. He looks like a grey-haired gent. How old is he now?


----------



## leslie cassian

He's 10. Still an ass, but he's mellowed. She's 6, and my princess. 

(sorry for the thread hijack)


----------



## Matt Vandart

It's cool Leslie, I too appreciate the picture  my threads are more like convo's anyway


----------



## Tony Hahn

Hi Matt, Sali looks all grown up! You've done a nice job with her.

Folks much smarter than I can explain better, but in very simplistic terms there are natural, bred in instincts we want to shape into controlled and useful behaviors as well as totally unnatural behaviors we need or want to condition into a dog. 

We can use pure compulsion. We can use rewards. We can use a combination. 

Again, it's over simplifying, but if we have a strong relationship with the dog and train (condition) fairly/intelligently, it doesn't matter whether we've used pure compulsion, rewards or both. If we're training correctly the compulsion tapers off until it's only used occasionally as a reminder/reinforcer. Same with rewards. They taper off also. Heeling for example starts off with a reward at the basic position, then later after a few steps, then later after a whole pattern, etc. Is the dog still working for a reward? Sure, to an extent, similar to how a dog trained with compulsion is heeling to avoid a yank on the collar. At some point an intelligent dog with decent pack drive starts working with you and neither reward nor correction is required. It doesn't mean we'll never choose to use them again, it just means the dog 'gets it' and behavior has been conditioned. Reward/compulsion are no longer a continuous requirement.

In either case, our goal in the end is to have the dog work FOR and WITH us. If the dog is working purely for the reward (or to avoid discomfort) then the conditioning (training) isn't done yet. 

One of the wonderful things about using a tug, etc is that it promotes interaction and bonding through play. 

IF we've actually 'trained' the dog, he'll work for us without a leash, collar or reward. IMO, this level of training requires an actual relationship with the dog. For some people building and maintaining that relationship is just as hard, if not harder, than learning timing rewards/corrections and so forth.

I think I understand your point. Try filming again with no reward at all. Not in your pocket, not anywhere around. Just you and the dog. Feel free to give her plenty of praise, pets, even some rough housing but no toys or food anywhere. That will get your point across much better.


----------



## Tony Hahn

Edit/clarification- praise, petting and rough housing are rewards. If I understood correctly Matt's video and point were directed at folks who criticize reward based training but aren't accomplishing anything themselves.

My experience has been those kinds of folks aren't astute enough to understand that affection, praise and play without toys are still rewards. Watching a dog continue to work without the presence of toys/food is almost guaranteed to shut them up.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Hey dude, it's been a long time  
Thanks for the reply great stuff as usual. 
You still without a k9 buddy?


----------



## Tony Hahn

Matt Vandart said:


> ........................You still without a k9 buddy?


Yes and no. Depends on how we define a K9 Buddy.

I'm married now. The new wife came accessorized with a Great Pyrenees. "Nice" friendly dog who's safe with the public. Dumber than a sack of hammers and quite useless for anything besides barking at imaginary noises or the same car pulling into the neighbors drive at the same time every day. (BARK BARK BARK; THE NEIGHBORS MAY HAVE BEEN CARJACKED BY A PACK OF WOLVES!!! BARK BARK BARK; MAYBE A T-REX IS GOING TO CLIMB OUT OF THAT CAR TODAY!!!!! BARK BARK BARK)

A couple months ago I took in a GSD that was scheduled for execution. After evaluating him and spending enough time to get a good idea of what he's about I probably should have just let him get the needle. Poor dog reminds me of some Dobermann's- too much dog for a 'pet home' to handle but not enough drive and not enough nerve to be a working or sport dog. I'm keeping him alive for now. At this point I figure that every day is a gift to him. Every day he's alive with me he has affection, mental & physical stimulation and leadership. I keep telling myself that no matter whether I keep him around for a month or year it's more time he would have gotten otherwise. 

My life is rapidly approaching a point where I can take on a puppy. When the time is right I'll start searching in earnest. 

How many dogs are in your household now?


----------



## Bob Scott

Kudos on your dog rescue!

Haven't had less then 2-3 sometimes four dogs at a time in the past 55 - 60 or so yrs.

Presently two GSDs...........and watching, for a week, my #2 daughters Chi dog and Pap x Pom while daughter and family are in Fla.

My GSDs - two working line, intact males. 11 1/2 and 8. 16 yr old working line JRT passed a couple of yrs ago. 

Daughter #2's - two intact females and I'm betting the 8 month old, Pap x pom will come into her first season while she's with us. ](*,):lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

DUH! I just realized you were talking to Matt.

I'm old ya know!  :grin:


----------



## Matt Vandart

Oh that's cool dude, congratulations!

There is currently 9 in my yard now 

Good old Bumpy the EBT is still going strong, 4 huntingdogs (2 terriers and 2 bullx hounds) Becca and Tilly the dobes, Sali and also Indie the XMali


----------



## rick smith

welcome to marriage Tony. i took the same step 20 years ago and she came with a pom //lol//

are you going to stop the giant fluff ball sack of hammers from barking, or are the wife's accessories off limits ?? //lol//

there is another thread going on that is perfectly watched for you 

i'll be willing to bet it is a piece of cake problem and the new wife will love you even more for your "miracle cure" and start calling you a dog whisperer 

keep us posted


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Tony Hahn said:

I'm married now. The new wife came accessorized with a Great Pyrenees. "Nice" friendly dog who's safe with the public. Dumber than a sack of hammers and quite useless for anything besides barking at imaginary noises or the same car pulling into the neighbors drive at the same time every day. 

How do you know the dog is dumb? Maybe the dog hears the "imaginary noises" better than you do!!

What does the "new wife" say about it. If the "new wife" didn't train the dog sufficiently, you have to take the baggage with the "new wife".

Jesus, These posts are so useless to dog training.


----------



## rick smith

why do untrained dogs or out of control dogs often get called "dumb" by their owners ?

why do owners say their dog is 'giving them the finger' ?

why do owners say their dog has 'selective hearing' or 'situational deafness' ?

why do these comments show up on a working dog forum as well as pet forums ?

why would i even post this useless drivel and drive this off topic post even farther off topic ?
...because it's a welcome break from busting concrete or watching CNN or waiting for this downpour to stop !!!!!!!!!!!!

carry on Matt


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Good on ya Rick!

I would ask fhese questions myself and have done.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

rick smith said:


> why do untrained dogs or out of control dogs often get called "dumb" by their owners ?
> 
> why do owners say their dog is 'giving them the finger' ?
> 
> why do owners say their dog has 'selective hearing' or 'situational deafness' ?
> 
> why do these comments show up on a working dog forum as well as pet forums ?


Because the owner/trainer doesn't understand proofing (for distraction, distance, venue, and duration), consistency, or clarity ... most commonly, IMHO, proofing. ("He KNOWS that command!" How often do we hear that?)

JMO!


----------



## Bob Scott

Connie, to use your words of wisdom

"That's a billboard moment"! :wink:


----------



## leslie cassian

I suspect it is because the owner isn't sufficiently motivated (too lazy. busy, too much going on, no time, whatever excuse people make up) to actually do anything with the dog. Much easier to blame the dog for being dumb, than to put in the effort to work with the dog. 

A couple of people have asked me for help - not because I'm particularly good at dog training, but because I actually trained my dogs. I give them one small thing to work on with a clicker to start... ten reps of a nose touch to a target and not one person has followed through and done it even once a week later. Yup, the dog is dumb and untrainable. :roll:](*,)


----------



## Joby Becker

"this dog is DUMB!"

very common statement, said far more often than it is true..

although I actually have ran across some dogs that appeared to be pretty fukking stupid LOL...


----------



## Matt Vandart

I too have met some pretty dumb dogs. It's not impossible for a dog to actually be a bit stupid, that's a fallacy as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Matt Vandart said:


> I too have met some pretty dumb dogs. It's not impossible for a dog to actually be a bit stupid, that's a fallacy as far as I am concerned.



You don't have to convince me. I've trained GSDs as well as, for example, Pugs. :lol: That's a really good way to see the IQ spectrum in action.

But they're both trainable, from very smart to not-so-smart, which I guess is a big part of what I was trying to say.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Yah, I agree. I actually quite like dumb dogs myself, they are usually very pleasant dogs


----------



## Bob Scott

No doubt thee are actually dumb dog out there just as there are people that can't learn. 

The vast majority of dogs called dumb, IMHO are the results of not figuring out what makes the individual dog responsive to what you want from them.

I had terriers for many yrs. 5-6 different breeds over the yrs and I was constantly told how stubborn, stupid, etc they can be.

I never had one that I couldn't take anywhere, anytime off lead.

My very first competition dog was a Kerry Blue and he was Nationally ranked in AKC OB.

My brothers Kerry Blue was HIT his very first AKC OB trial. 

Stubborn, dumb terriers? Not so much!

I can look back on many dogs and always wonder "what if" when it comes to today's training methods compared to "older" methods.

I've owned a few that took some figuring out as to how they learn but, so far, never had a dumb one. 

If anything I can honestly say that I've been the limiting factor on many of them.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Terriers are definitely not dumb


----------



## Nilledem Greg

Matt Vandart said:


> Terriers are definitely not dumb


Glad to know that we share the same sentiment. Created with a brain and life, created with unique abilities!


----------



## Bob Scott

Gotta love the evil little bassids! :twisted:


----------

