# how do you teach markers



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Anyone interested in a serious thread about how you teach markers ?
....and taking the time to write up your thoughts in some level of detail beyond one liners and short general statements ?

beyond the usual ... "check out the Michael Ellis (and other notable trainers) dvd's " ?

my reason for posting....
been working with someone who had many years of "dog experience" but had NO concept of what "markers" was all about. 
- was (and still is) VERY motivated
- is not a quick learner
- is not a good reader of canine behavior
- is not particularly quick with hand/eye coordination
- is very intelligent and has read a lot and watched a lot of dog training vids

for a couple of months i made the usual progress .... then ran into a lot of frustrating moments and progress leveled off

i had an "ah ha" moment that helped turn the page and it is now making me look at how i train in a whole different perspective.

- i'm VERY interested to see if anyone wants to share the details of how they have taught markers to someone who falls into the above category, since that is a fairly common profile for people i have worked with


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

I'm interested. I am no professional though and probably do meet 50% of the profile you have described. I have clicker trained an agility dog and that worked well. With my Dutchie SAR dog I think I started with a clicker but transitioned to a word. That went okay. I am just now getting ready to clicker train my husband's rescue WL GSD. My goal is to get her to allow us to clip nails which is impossible right now without taking her to the vet to be medicated. 

One thing I have noticed about myself is that I start with marker training and then trail off. Why? It seems that the dog and I just learn to read each other better. I don't do much marker training with my dutchie now. He knows his job.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> been working with someone who had many years of "dog experience" but had NO concept of what "markers" was all about.
> - was (and still is) VERY motivated
> - is not a quick learner
> *- is not a good reader of canine behavior
> ...


Those 2 things I underlined and bolded basically negates someone from being able to apply markers or corrections for that matter in a meaningful way I'm afraid. The way I read it those 2 things missing is a recipe for disaster. 

You can be book/video/ smart but nothing replaces experience in a case like this. It is good that the person is motivated and such, but for me I wonder how many dogs do you have mess up in the process.

For someone like this it has to be kept simple. Something like the 'eye contact game' or put a e-collar in the person's pocket on vibrate that you as a coach controls and marks behaviours that your student does without a dog. Or while you work his dog while he observes. Obviously the criteria has to be simple enough for the person to see and understand. For me this person needs to learn to walk before they can run and all the videos and such that they have flooded their brain with is/was counterproductive.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Karin
Tx for responding
if you clicker trained an agility dog you are "professional" enuff for my thread 
- we don't have that many members who train for a living and i don't want the thread to be limited to those few

so, were you self taught or did someone teach you markers ?
i want to focus on the methods involved to learn markers

re: "One thing I have noticed about myself is that I start with marker training and then trail off. Why?" 

--- i don't know what specific markers you use, or how you use a clicker, but my guess is two possible reasons :

1. maybe you that feel markers are mostly used to train new behaviors and to correct non-compliance ? i feel markers can be used throughout the life of the dog. even after they know their jobs
...that is definitely not how i use them. they are a part of everyday life with my dog. and we read each too well //LOL//
- they are the way i communicate to my dog in order to reward and punish. they are really not tools i pick and choose to apply in certain training situations 
- i also noticed when i got sloppy with markers for my house dog, his behavior reflected exactly the same thing 

2. or maybe you have stopped training new behaviors ?

how you intend to use markers for the nail issue might be an interesting place to start. 

* basically, i'm looking for the details; there are plenty of links all over the net about the basics of markers 

- for instance, you could write as if you were going to teach someone else who had never used markers, and then go thru the process of how you would teach the process to them as it relates to the nail issue


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I'd have to agree with Geoff on the two things he underscored.

I've been doing markers for a bout 12 yrs now and with any form of dog training I think timing and dog behavior are a huge factor.

I started with the basic concept of loading the marker. "Yes" reward, "Yes" reward, etc. till the dog "gets it".

"Gets it" means the dog starts watching you and gets excited when it hears the marker word or clicker. 

Example

The dog may be a couple of feet away but it looks at you and moves towards you for the reward when it hears the marker.

Some feel it's easier to start with a clicker. I've not seen a difference but I use only one in the beginning and the switch/crossover has never seemed to be a problem. 

I believe it's more a timing and consistency issue then the actual marker.

I still use, and will continue to use markers/reward on a random basis even using daily commands but depending on my dogs, one is quite happy with a happy "good dog" while the other likes the Kong reward.

If I'm not going to reward them they get an "ok" release. 

If I don't give that "ok" then the dog's will stay focused on me.

With someone that had issues with timing I would work with them without the dog.

In the club I started markers with we would mark and reward another handler without their dog.

You don't want a green handler confusing it's also green dog and you also wouldn't want a green handler confusing an already trained dog either.

Example

You want to send the handler to a doorway, to a rug, whatever then you tell them to click and reward whenever they face the object, move towards the object, pick up the object or whatever else you want then to do.

You simply ignore behaviors that aren't goal orientated.

Start with something simple. 

I think it can be a BIG help for timing AND reading the body language for anyone that is trying to learn the method.

Yes, it helps to have some understanding of marker work but that can easily be demonstrated by you.

Just as you would when teaching a dog a new behavior the user of the clicker needs to learn to stay neutral and not look at the item, get excited when the handler is getting hot or cold so they don't give body cues to the person being "trained". 

As with any training I think another hurdle is teaching someone how to wean the dog off the markers.

I want the dog to be able to chain a couple of behaviors together and that starts only when a bit of duration is possible with the first behavior. 

Obviously only solid behaviors should be chained together.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Geoff 
understand your comments and agree, but i want to focus on "how markers are taught"....if that is possible //LOL//

i sure hope we would all agree using markers correctly depends a LOT on timing, but i also think most everyone who is starting to learn will lack the hand eye coordination necessary to apply them correctly
- some more than others 
- so i feel this has to be taught.....the question is "how" ? how do you teach timing and why is it never mentioned when talking about markers ?

in my experience this has always been a HUGE factor that always results in frustration with people i work with
...and directly relates to my "ah ha" moment (which i will discuss later if this thread takes off)

i DEFINITELY feel understanding dog behavior is often overlooked as a criteria for training, and when applying markers, so it also has to be taught....do you consider that as a part of teaching markers or is it just a side issue ?
i say it IS a factor that relates, but i've never heard it mentioned when discussing markers


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Bob
Tx for taking time....

re : "I started with the basic concept of loading the marker. "Yes" reward, "Yes" reward, etc. till the dog "gets it". "

that method is usually shown in ALL clicker training vids and always the first thing mentioned when teaching markers 
... "load the marker" ...
-- i want to get WAY down more into the weeds //LOL//
-- it is also one of the easiest things to teach and i have never had anyone have a problem learning how to charge a positive marker
but....
1. it implies you are only training "all positive", and that is not how i use markers. like when you said you ignore unwanted behaviors 
2. i have NEVER heard of anyone "loading" a negative marker 
i use negative markers and i teach them in the beginning, because i think "all positive" marker training will fail at some point if you are training more than basic sit, stand, downs, and basic OB or dog tricks
3. for me, marker(s) is a plural.... i teach more than a "yes" marker
do you only teach one marker ?? if so, how many and how do you teach them ??
- i still say all marker training is not created equal, and the problems seem to be more common for people who only teach the "yes" marker
- when you watch clicker vids (which i rarely do anymore) all you see is the positive side

can you elaborate on how and why you "fade markers" ?? it seemed to me you start out with a yes and then later it becomes an "ok" ?
- i start with a yes marker but use that same sound forever. always been crystal clear to my dog. even for simple shit he knows well, like waiting to be released from inside my vehicle...he still gets a "yes" when its "ok" to launch out //LOL//

i don't want to give the impression my way is the only way, so i hope others will post on how they teach markers


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Geoff

i know you are not an all positive trainer, so i'll assume you use negative markers 

when do you start teaching them ?

for example, do you use negative markers when teaching the "eye game" ?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i would also VERY much like to hear from others who might not be so experienced, and have used markers and gotten frustrated and given up 
- how did you start learning them ? details please !
- what worked ?
- what didn't ?
- why did you get frustrated and stop using them ?

i'm not here just to say "how i do it" ... even tho that will happen //LOL//
I (we) can't solve any problems if we don't know what they are 

I just want to tie the problems to the methods of teaching markers


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> Geoff
> 
> i know you are not an all positive trainer, so i'll assume you use negative markers
> 
> ...


No .. The eye contact game is the most basic of the basic things. You'd be putting the cart before the horse in introducing negative markers to something that is so basic and is only used for teaching in the first place. Negative markers are only when you know a dog understands a command for a behaviour. I rarely rarely use any negative markers any ways in basic obedience. An interrupter maybe but a verbal aversive .. nah. 



> Geoff I understand your comments and agree, but i want to focus on "how markers are taught"....if that is possible //LOL//
> 
> i sure hope we would all agree using markers correctly depends a LOT on timing, but i also think most everyone who is starting to learn will lack the hand eye coordination necessary to apply them correctly
> - some more than others :smile:
> ...


Markers are sometimes you either have it or you don't. I was a pro musician for many years and timing is always a science when it comes to music. Timing with dogs should be a lot easier than counting out a fast 32nd note violin passage transribed for the electric guitar or knowing where to come in on that dotted 8th note bass line . But even so when I started to delve into training with markers I sucked .. I sucked at corrections to as they are really mirror image of each other. 

I more stumbled into understanding them through accident than by design. There is a bunch of things to factor. Most of it is handlers going way past their level to read a dog. If you can't read a dog and know what you are marking it is a moot point to mark anything. You might as well get a pair of castanets and do the mumbo jumbo voodoo dance in the back yard. 

Reality is you need simple criteria, like an eye contact game and expand from there. As the criteria gets more demanding then the margin for error increases but if the student can expand from an eye contact game a heeling program, retrieve, outs are all within reach. 

Then maybe your student can get his mojo happening. 
https://youtu.be/l6AlQgq9MRE


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Geoff 

what markers do you use and when do you apply them ?
for me i like the dog to learn the difference between yes and no from the get go, and learning what no means doesn't have to add conflict or be very aversive at all

what is your interrupter and verbal aversive markers ?

--- here's an overview of the markers i use, and some of my 'details' ….

I use four verbal markers; with a brief definition of each. My markers are :
1. yes (correct, you are released and you will get a reward)
2. no (not correct, keep trying and do something different)
3. good (i like that; keep it up, or give me more of the same, etc)
4. NO ( WRONG…you know that is not correct so you better re-think quickly and do what i said)

I use the first two when I start teaching markers.
I used to use the first three, but the good mark was too hard for most people to learn when they were starting out. They had a hard time deciding whether to use the good or yes mark. And they frequently intermixed the two marks, so now I introduce that mark later.

the NO is not part of the beginning stages of my marker training

….BUT….the NO will be used whenever the dog is doing something that i will not tolerate, so in ‘some’ ways it is used early in training. all depends on the type of dog in front of me. but if i have to use a NO, i will try hard to just use a single NO followed by a physical action that will not allow the dog to continue the behavior that I won’t tolerate. no other verbals, and yes, i realize that is hard to do sometimes //LOL//

I also have a hard time teaching the no to new customers. for me, It MUST be used in a consistent, low pitched low volume delivery. if not, the NO will never be seen as a different marker from the 'no' mark, so i concentrate a LOT on keeping the no at a consistent verbal level

The no and the NO are different by volume. the NO will be paired with a correction. 
- whether a NO is followed by a correction, or whether the NO will be followed by a different command will depend on the level of training the dog has under its belt.
* BUT … the NO will never be used until the dog alredy knows a number of basic verbal commands that are rock solid. After i use a NO, I will try to give the dog and alternative command that can get a 'ye's or a 'good'

- at this point in the thread, I just want to explain what i call “details” regarding how you teach markers rather than justification for using each one. for me, it has to start with a plan of what markers will be used 

If i use the “eye game” I use the ‘no' mark as much as the ‘yes' mark. In fact, I try to use them at a 50/50 rate. I want the dog to know that “no" means “that is not what I want, try something else”
- when the dog looks away i immediately give a 'no', and the timing is as important as a yes when i do get eye contact
- with a new dog a 'no' sound will often trigger them to return eye contact
- of course i also wait it out and mark the eye contact with a yes, but for sure i give 'no' marks and at this point in marker training i do not think it is has very much aversive effect on anything but the softest dog 

to each his own, but i think one of the ways people get frustrated, and/or give up on markers is when they have to communicate something to the dog besides a "yes" ....

anyway, would still like to hear about how you apply interrupters, etc


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : "I more stumbled into understanding them through accident than by design. There is a bunch of things to factor. Most of it is handlers going way past their level to read a dog. If you can't read a dog and know what you are marking it is a moot point to mark anything. You might as well get a pair of castanets and do the mumbo jumbo voodoo dance in the back yard. "

this insight is very interesting
some members may recall i give all my customers a little "pop quiz" on dog behavior before i start working with them. i do it to determine where their level of recognizing canine behavior falls 
- i get surprised all the time by some of the answers. even from people who have "had dogs all their lives"

what i am reading above is that learning how to read a dog should come before any attempt to learn markers
- i agree, but i have NEVER heard that mentioned regarding teaching markers 
- my obvious Q would be how do you teach people to read dogs, and i know there is no simple answer to that and don't want to go there in this thread 
- i just 'grin and bear it' and try my best to do both at the same time, but you can't do everything all the time when you are working with a customer
- so whenever i can i shoot video and we review later. helps a lot


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> what i am reading above is that learning how to read a dog should come before any attempt to learn markers
> - i agree, but i have NEVER heard that mentioned regarding teaching markers
> - my obvious Q would be how do you teach people to read dogs, and i know there is no simple answer to that and don't want to go there in this thread
> - i just 'grin and bear it' and try my best to do both at the same time, but you can't do everything all the time when you are working with a customer
> - so whenever i can i shoot video and we review later. helps a lot


To a point Rick you need to be able to read dogs before really getting the nitty gritty details of teaching with markers. 

But to train markers I mean basic markers, you should be able to get a simple concept of "watch me" understood in 1 session it shouldn't be rocket science. This where it has to start. 

For me only working directly with master trainers watching, listening and questioning over the years was I able to get a better picture of a 'bigger' training picture of what dogs need to work in a complex environment like the Ringsport training environment. Not just training markers but being able to read the dogs as well. But these are fine fine details. 

*Now here is the important part:* It all goes back to "watch me" as well when I say "watch me" that means we also have to watch the dog. The dog here is the key to everything done in markers. Not a specific word or tool, not a trainer not a DVD. Just don't take your eyes off the dog!! The dog is the *KEY* to markers!! 

You work a heel position .. you watch your dog, you watch his positioning, his eye contact, his forging or lagging, is he crabbing, is he crowding? ... If you are not watching your dog in a fraction of a second you've just missed something that you as a student of the training misses. The teacher of the handler is the dog, but he just taught himself that the forge he just did was acceptable because the handler was talking to the training director and asleep at the wheel. There was an opportunity to engage the dog .. read the dog .. guide the dog .. use body language. But the handler missed that opportunity by thinking like a human. 

*MARKER FAIL!!!*

WATCH YOUR DOG!!! Is the first rule in marker training. You need to be able to think 2 - 3 turns ahead like driving a race car or playing a difficult piece of music, hitting a baseball you need to know where you are going and plan for it and be ready to roll or you will be a broken heap on the side of the road. It's the same with dog training. 



rick smith said:


> Geoff
> 
> what markers do you use and when do you apply them ?
> for me i like the dog to learn the difference between yes and no from the get go, and learning what no means doesn't have to add conflict or be very aversive at all
> ...


I use all of the above Rick like everybody pretty well that speaks english. As well I use words mostly in French during my Ring training. 

But .... To many get caught up on the words themselves. Words mean nothing to a dog IMO.

Remember the ‘Far side’ Cartoon by Gary Larson? He had one cartoon about what dogs hear vs what we think they hear. 

”Ok Ginger I’ve had it, you stay out of the garbage. Understand Ginger? Stay out of the garbage or else!” vs What dogs hear “Blah Ginger blah, blah, blah, .. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah Ginger.. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,   

This is true!!! How do we make all those Blah blahs have some value for the dog?   

I also use a intermediate mark also known as a ‘keep going’ mark which is separate from the click or ‘jackpot’ word. I use many different words even partial words, inflection or even body language for my Intermediate bridge mark and Terminal 'Jackpot' mark. 

  What I’ve found that dogs seem to understand or react better to hard consonant sounds than vowel sounds, it is important to know the difference between vowel sounds and consonant sounds. i.e “Good Boy/Girl” both words depending on the sex of the dog start with a hard consonant. That in itself is part of the key of communication with dogs.   Probably why German works so well as dog commands as it is a hard sounding language. Yell 'PLATZ' vs 'DOWN' and see what gets a stronger reaction from your dog. They both mean the same thing but what has more weight for the dog? 

What I've found, it is the delivery of the 'mark' and the use of the consonant that creates or deflates the excitement. i.e. The inflection of the tone of your voice and even body language has a huge bearing on what the dog understands in our communication with them. i.e "VOILA!!!" vs "voila .. in a Eeyore voice"   

That being said my main way to 'Jackpot' mark is the clicker, just because I think that there is to many variations in the human voice. So like everything else in dog training it is consistency and timing that separates the good vs the great trainers. I do use "YES" or Voila" in a pinch.   If we've done the foundation of the mark/clicker correctly we have to load the mark/clicker with literally thousands of marks/clicks. It has to have that pavlovian effect. The mark/clicker loading is something that has to be done way way in advance to have significant meaning for the dog down the line.   That goes back to the 'Eye contact game' You can't run before you can walk.

Once you and your students have really mastered marker training, most likely you will notice that you have a much more subtle understanding of the emotional impact your actions have on your dog (reading of your dog(s)) ...I always try to remind people that dogs are "emotional mirrors"...in the short term during training, so *WATCH YOUR DOG!!! *Secondly watch *YOURSELF!!!*

As for all the markers I would use. There is not enough time in the day for me to keep writing to list all that I use. But it isn't always about spoken words .. it is a lot about other means of communication. i.e body language, touch, emotional and speaking all of those languages with some clarity and meaning.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Great, informative post, Geoff. Are you using only "good" as the keep-going mark, or is there another word or cue, or do you switch it up, e.g. sometimes "wait" instead of "good"?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

lots of great insight and advice that goes way beyond teaching markers
watch the dog
watch yourself
you MUST learn how to read dogs
etc

but that is going beyond what i wanted to focus on in this thread

- i have never heard of anyone who uses such a large number of markers ??
- i would still like a list of what you consider markers...even if it's only the "top ten" 

i'm thinking you consider any verbal cue as a marker
the longer you live with a dog the more you can control it with short verbal cues
- becomes an easy way to "fine tune" behaviors
* i can see the importance of fine tuning in a demanding sport like French Ring
- just saying "hey" will make my dog slow down, but i don't consider that as a marker
- saying "relax" will make him stand down and relax, but i don't consider it a marker
- "wait" would also fit into my category of a cue or verbal command, but that can be redundant many times. mostly it is not needed. if i simply get ready to put my dog in a car or let him out, a "wait" is not necessary. the 'no' works just fine and covers that situation fine. it has been pointed out many times, if i tell my dog to sit, why would i then have to tell it to wait ??? if it looks like it might be about to break or do something i don't want, the simple low key 'no' is the mark the dog already knows well

but those types of verbal cues, whether in a training scenario or in daily life, would fall into my category of learned commands; not markers.
i use markers throughout the dog's life, and try to teach new things so life doesn't get boring, but the list stays short and that seems to be clear enough for my own dog as well as those i work with, and they cover any situation

i think that is where we might differ ???

no one has posted their list of markers. 
i still want to to learn what markers other people use 
- but i am mostly interested in how markers are taught

the "blah blah blah" nonsense talking Geoff referred to gets discussed the first day of training 
- we all talk too much to an animal who doesn't understand language in the first place .... some much more than others, and those types DEFINITELY do not understand (or use) markers //LOL//
- just another reason why i consider them important !!!

Meg...how many markers do you use and how do you teach them ?

anyway...very interesting and seems to confirm not all "marker training" is created equal 
* and becomes more relevant when 'not all positive' marker training happens that requires corrections !!
..... we haven't even gotten there yet ;-)

still like to hear from others too about how you teach markers or how you learned them, or why you might have given up using them. i think that subject is well worth discussing


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i think most people would consider Michael Ellis a master trainer
i have patterned a lot of my training techniques from him

his list of markers seems pretty short


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I didn't mention it at the time but I do use a negative marker. "Nope"!

For ME only using a "no" creates issues for ME. 
I've always had to control my impatience and "No" can to easily turn into "NO" for ME. 

I've never thought about it but I agree 100% that it eventually becomes a learned command.

In that line of thought I use "yes" and "nope" for the initial training.

NO! has to much force for me so it is strictly a learned behavior for "Stop what your doing" for behaviors not allowed.

"Quit" is my "I don't want you doing that for now" behaviors such as the dogs following me around, pestering me to play when I have other things to do. It's not used as a harsh command like the "NO". 

I also believe that reading a dog is key to ANY good training bit it also doesn't come naturally to some people and never to others. 

That's where a good trainer is helpful for the nuby. 

I spent much of a New Yrs Party going over dog behavior with one of my nephews and his wife.

They both were very willing but really didn't know how to start. Nephew's wife was like a sponge picking it up. They'll do well!

My comment about weaning off the amrkes would better be said weaning to a random reward system.

I think that once the dog knows what's going on then it expects the constant reward to be a part of the behavior. 

Then when a behavior is called for and the dog doesn't get rewarded often enough with it being a constant, then the behavior can fade or at best lose it's good response.

I have no problem using luring and shaping when training a new behavior but, if possible I like the dog to "discover" what I'm wanting with as little help as possible. 

Get them "think" and trying to work it out without to much guidance. 

"Luring" can also become a 'bribe" way to easy if it isn't faded asap.

Fading.

Slowly remmoving hand signals for the command. 

In other words, in puppy training I will pass the food treat over the dogs head front to back in order to get the pup placing it's but on the groound. 

Eventually that hand movement becomes no movement form me at all.

I think it was Geoff I discussed hand signals vs verbal only and I agreed with him that removing the hand signals is only critical with a competition dog so if both are used for someone that doesn't intend to compete I see no real reason to fade the movement.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Marker timing

Initially I tell the nuby to be sure and limit hand movement and also to count 1-2 and then give the reward. 

As with the ME system they should also move away from the dog to keep it in drive,gear, whatever. 

Teaching a "come" with markers to a puppy is also something that you want movement. 

Example

Toss a small piece of treat on the floor. When the puppy runs out and gets the treat YOU get excited and move away from the pup.

When the pup turns towards you mark and reward out of hand while moving away from the pup. 

Toss another treat, etc. 

Ideally I want like the nuby to see them self on video concerning all phases of training from loading the mark to marking any behavior. 

For many if not most I think that goes lots further then just explaning and demonstrating something to them. 

With a pup I will always carry treats and mark and reward it even if it's not under a command or in a training period.

I want that pup to ALWAYS think I'm the absolute best place to be.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

been thinking more about the blah blah blah syndrome

in the extreme cases, like Geoff pointed out with his example, it is obvious to anyone with any dog skills that it is useless background noise to a dog
- anyone guilty of this should be banned as a WDF member 

with that said, we are all 'guilty' of having conversations with our dogs when others are not around //LOL//
......anyone who say they don't is a liar in my book and has no business owning a dog 

BUT in the not so extreme, i also think it can become counterproductive
-- too much "blah" .... rather than "blah blah blah"


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

TX Bob
that cleared up a lot of Q's I had 

i think all markers are cues, but not all cues are markers
...but really don't want to go into that unless others have strong feelings about it and want to discuss it at length

I want to stay on how markers are taught
i still think too many people get turned off to markers because of the way they learned them and never learn how to apply them effectively
THAT is the basis for my thread

example
in discussions, everyone seems to get it but when doing it everyone seems to struggle
...yeah....i know....it's a "timing thing"
but i think the actual method of teaching can be as much of the problem

anyone can learn to 'charge the mark' in a few minutes
in most cases it is a "watch me first and copy what i'm doing"
....that rarely works once you get past the "eye game" //LOL//

i think if others who have given up on using markers would post, some of the problems might come to light

i also think there are people who claim to use markers but are not really using markers and then revert to physical compulsion 
- in my experience they have been the majority of people who have given up
- why does this happen ?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

With my older GSD talking is a total waste of time. He's all business and pretty much wouldn't benefit a thing from it.

My younger GSD would probably get over excited with anything more then the basic commands and a soft calm "goood" now and then. 

I do and always have talked with my dogs on a regular basis. Just not during training.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick said

"I still think too many people get turned off to markers because of the way they learned them and never learn how to apply them effectively
THAT is the basis for my thread"


I think the average marker trainer out there is pet trainers that are more into tree hugging and fur babies. 

.......Not that it's a bad thing:twisted:. 

I did train my older GSD with no physical correction. It was my first experience with it and having trained dogs since I was a kid I wanted to see how it could be done. 

At now 12 yrs old he's still never had any correction other then unnecessary and loss of control by me.

All that ever did was set me and the dog back in training because of my frustrations. That NEVER teaches the dog a thing. 

My biggest objection to that is I've not really seen it done successfully by anyone that didn't have an excellent connection with their dog. 

Those that I've seen fail had no real clue about the how and why of what they were doing and that ALWAYS seemed to come from a lack of connection or respect from the dog. 

My younger GSD is way to handler soft and I know I'd wreck him with anything more then verbal corrections.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i am NOT interested in pet owners unless they are serious pet owners and we have a LOT here

and pet owners with a serious interest and questions about teaching markers, especially if they have had problems in the past

lots of SAR folks here have said they used markers and many others as well, maybe even Mel, and the other girls
Larry is a pro trainer who uses markers
many IPO folks too

heck, i even thought i heard Joby say he uses markers //LOL//

i want to stay away from the obvious clueless types and keep this detailed and specific to serious training of all types by all owners


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> My biggest objection to that is I've not really seen it done successfully by anyone that didn't have an excellent connection with their dog.
> 
> Those that I've seen fail had no real clue about the how and why of what they were doing and that ALWAYS seemed to come from a lack of connection or respect from the dog.
> 
> My younger GSD is way to handler soft and I know I'd wreck him with anything more then verbal corrections.


Bob, 

For me, this is hitting it on the nail head. A lot of people say they have a relationship with their dog but they really don't. Other than me, supreme lord and commander.... you, servant and slave. Or the flipside, where they don't develop one and the dog (or human) runs wild because the time was not taken to create one. If there is no respect from either, then you really don't have a anything.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> i am NOT interested in pet owners unless they are serious pet owners and we have a LOT here


Please explain what a serious pet owner is? As opposed to an average pet owner or compared to a DILLIGAS pet owner.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Great, informative post, Geoff. Are you using only "good" as the keep-going mark, or is there another word or cue, or do you switch it up, e.g. sometimes "wait" instead of "good"?


To clarify and explain further.. this quote.


> I’ve found that dogs seem to understand or react better to hard consonant sounds than vowel sounds, it is important to know the difference between vowel sounds and consonant sounds. i.e “Good Boy/Girl” both words depending on the sex of the dog start with a hard consonant. That in itself is part of the key of my communication with my dogs.


 Again ..


> it is the delivery of the 'mark' and the use of the consonant that creates or deflates the excitement. i.e. The inflection of the tone of your voice and even body language has a huge bearing on what the dog understands in our communication with them. i.e "VOILA!!!" vs "voila .. in a Eeyore voice"


Back to the blah blah .. the dog only really hears the consonant not the softer vowel. So in practice I can use and do use just the 'g' or just make a "gaa" sound and not do the "ood" part of the word and the dog understands the same thing. 'Wait' for me is a weaker sounding word than 'good' so I'd never use wait. Think of my "PLATZ vs DOWN" analogy. Or if I was giving a supplementary keep going que I use something with 2 syllables. French the command for 'wait' is 'attend' phonically it comes off the tongue like "AT (roll of tongue) TON", FYI there is 2 hard consonants there with the 2 Ts' it is blah blah without blah blah. LOL! You could probably say 'Ta Ta' and it would mean the same thing to my dog when you factor in training environment and my body language. I learned this concept from the talented Kayce Cover http://synalia.com/ who is also a WDF member, and experimented on my own to find what worked with my own animals. 

Yes I know Rick I'm drifting your thread with gobblygook again, :razz: but then maybe the answer to your quest on how to teach a noob markers .. the answer is in between the lines somewhere.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Geof
NO problems !
actually the hard consonant vs soft is an intriguing subject in itself and possibly worth a thread

- what is French for 'out' ? 
.....(a command needed when a dog is in max drive, especially if dialed in)

- german for out ?

- the marker 'yes' is also very soft but it will make my dog respond instantly and i never yell it like i was on a trial field. has worked the same for many others

i have never read any study on what sounds a dog hears better. would be interested

i do know dogs have better hearing than we do and they hear in a more expanded range
- also seen and heard a lot of crappy handlers complain that their dog goes deaf on them sometimes ... or has selective hearing 
almost as dumb as saying their dog flipped em a finger 

still it would be interesting to know if it has ever been studied one way or the other ... and it could be done

but i don't believe that the success or failure of using markers is significantly influenced by the selection of the word .... do you ?

lastly, dogs hear sounds not words .... amen on that topic for now 

i'm seriously more interested in how you feel about verbal cues vs verbal commands vs markers ..... one and the same ???
(and, by the way, "verbal' doesn't mean it has to be a word....i use clicks with my mouth and half words too, but i don't consider them markers)

fwiw
my thread was not "how to teach markers to noobs"
for me a noob gives a bad connotation of being dumb and clueless 
what i asked is exactly what, i wrote so please don't think i only work with clueless dumb shits who know nothing about dogs


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

rick smith said:


> Geoff
> 
> what markers do you use and when do you apply them ?
> for me i like the dog to learn the difference between yes and no from the get go, and learning what no means doesn't have to add conflict or be very aversive at all
> ...


Just a small point. I use "nope" and "NO". The tones are different. Nope is sort of a friendly, "not what I want" and "NO" is sharper, louder and meaning business.


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

rick smith said:


> re : "I more stumbled into understanding them through accident than by design. There is a bunch of things to factor. Most of it is handlers going way past their level to read a dog. If you can't read a dog and know what you are marking it is a moot point to mark anything. You might as well get a pair of castanets and do the mumbo jumbo voodoo dance in the back yard. "
> 
> this insight is very interesting
> some members may recall i give all my customers a little "pop quiz" on dog behavior before i start working with them. i do it to determine where their level of recognizing canine behavior falls
> ...


I am not the professional here but worked with a great trainer. The first session that was almost 4 hours long, was just me, "reading dog language". The trainer gave me a book that he put together that was all on reading the dog. I think of myself as pretty good but unfortunately I'm not a natural. I can learn a lot but it isn't natural for me.


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

So a bit out of my league with you guys. I realize that. I do have a working dog and we have passed two of our certifying SAR (wilderness area) tests, one more to go, hopefully this month. I think we are a pretty good team. Not the best but maybe slightly above average compared to other certified teams out there. But I'm guessing as a trainer I would be a bit of a mess to your guys in many ways. However, I have a dutchie and his obedience is pretty good for a SAR dog. And he is a confident and gamey dog.

My husband got a rescued working line GSD. She is a bit of a mess and while I told him I could not train another dog... here I am, frustrated with how little the husband is doing with her and realizing for a dog it doesn't work that way if we hope to do things together. I have to get involved. Just some background.

So, I don't have a lot of time. She is a soft dog and easily triggered into the flight response. But she is a big shepherd so we have to work on this. When triggered, of course, she is in the singular survival mode. (Not as bad as I'm making it sound but her threshold is low and my dutch has a very high threshold).

I decided to use a clicker for marker training. Words as markers are just problematic with another person in the picture. With my other dog I use a voice positive marker but I use "nice" because yes is used by two of us in different ways. My goal is to improve my working relationship with her, see if I can get her to a place where I can clip those damn nails, and improve my ability to control both dogs off leash. 

The last two days I am just "loading" the clicker and at the same time rewarding her eyes focusing on mine. She is getting it. Today I will kennel my dutch and work in a bigger space or outside just to vary the environment and increase movement. Still focusing on "watch me". 

One of the questions I have is this idea of marking with no verbal command. As one of your serious pet owner types.... I just get too impatient with that and want to put a voice command to the action. Sit or watch me, etc. That is where I deviate from how I have seen clicker training presented. I haven't realized negative consequences that are significant enough for me to change that. So I add the verbal command sooner than what I understand is desired. 

Okay, that is from the nonprofessional messy person.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> lastly, dogs hear sounds not words .... amen on that topic for now


Humans hear sounds too. We are not so far removed from dogs. Humans, as well as dogs, listen for tone, pitch, delivery, and speed (and sometimes body position) to help understand the sound's intent. For example if you hear a new language it is just a jumble of sounds. However, over time you learn that this collection of sounds spoken is a particular manner (or under unique circumstances) means something specific which we term as 'words'. Until you learn what that particular sound means it's gobbligook until you learn through either through association with a specific physical act or through demonstration learn what it's interpreted as applying too. Dogs (and all animals, including humans) go through the same process. I think, over time, dogs learn words just as humans do.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/682703-your-houseplants-can-think-talk-read-your-mind-part-2/

and apparently plants are even better at it.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Karin
....just a thought

are you familiar with the term "luring" ?
it's simply a method to manipulate a dog and move them into a position you want them to be without having to say a thing 
this technique works VERY well with markers
great for teaching the basic sit, stand and down positions
also a great way to start heeling practice

it might keep yourself from wanting to give a verbal command

you present an object the dog really wants in the palm of your hand...usually a food item the dog is motivated to get
hold it as close as you can and move away from the dog while coaxing it with your palm
this is a great way to use your markers because when the dog does what you want, you mark it and reward the behavior (and not always with the one you were luring with)
- as the dog becomes consistent and predictable, you start to anticipate the dog and THEN you can add the verbal command.....but not until you have a high percentage prediction that the dog will actually do it

i've recently taught this to a person who had three previous dogs and they are very glad they learned it and are getting much more control over their current dog

in many cases you really don't want to start using a verbal command before the dog understands what it needs to do, and in my opinion this is one of the best reasons why the marker system should be used
luring negates the need for physical compulsion

every dog will follow a lure if they are motivated. if you can't motivate your dog, it's not ready to learn anything anyway 
even dogs with low prey drive can respond to luring. as with any new technique, start this in an area with low distractions, but continue to raise the bar or you will only have a dog that performs well near the kitchen //LOL//
....and have a plan for what you are doing or it just becomes a feeding session 

bottom line, it's a great way to practice markers and improve your timing

if you watch the dog closely (as Geoff has already pointed out) as you are doing this, it will also teach you a lot about the biomechanics of how your dog's body moves in relation to how its head is lured, and that can be frustrating at first 

luring has been around for years with wild animal trainers....dog folks have been late to the game 

anyway, if this is already being done ...sorry


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

I do know about luring.

But why wait to add command? I never understood the why or the implications of it. Or rather the importance of it.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> - what is French for 'out' ?
> .....(a command needed when a dog is in max drive, especially if dialed in)
> 
> - german for out ?


French = "Halte" but sounds somewhat phonetically 'AOOLTTT' with the L being almost silent more of a roll of the tongue. The H is the breath out and again pretty silent. 


German = "Aus" but sounds somewhat phoentically 'AHOOZZZ' or "AHOOSSS" The Z and S are interchangeable pretty much. 

They both end with a hard sounding consonant and if you say them both back to back with the same timbre and inflection. Your dog would be hard pressed to know the difference. 



rick smith said:


> - the marker 'yes' is also very soft but it will make my dog respond instantly and i never yell it like i was on a trial field. has worked the same for many others
> 
> i have never read any study on what sounds a dog hears better. would be interested


It is only through my own training experience that I've found that out, and through Kayce's initial suggestions. It works for me and my dogs that's all I know. 

re: 'YES' again it is a hard consonant at the end. For a fun experiment hiss at your dog. "SSSSSS"!!!! Then watch the reaction, I bet the dog will get all excited go into some sort of defense or aggro posture or maybe even want to bite you in the balls. LOL! 



rick smith said:


> still it would be interesting to know if it has ever been studied one way or the other ... and it could be done
> 
> but i don't believe that the success or failure of using markers is significantly influenced by the selection of the word .... do you?


Nope neither do I. Failure is always a timing, understanding and application thing. 

I'm sure it could be done might be a good thing for someone doing a thesis at vet school. Other than that it would be pretty time consuming. 



rick smith said:


> i'm seriously more interested in how you feel about verbal cues vs verbal commands vs markers ..... one and the same ???
> (and, by the way, "verbal' doesn't mean it has to be a word....i use clicks with my mouth and half words too, but i don't consider them markers)


I have a friend who has a click built into his voice. His timing and application of it it is a beautiful thing. 

For me verbal cues are asking for 'attention' my dog's name is the first cue always. It gets his attention. Command or asking for a behaviour is not really a mark it is a asking for a behaviour so can't really be a mark especially if the animal doesn't understand the command so a command is not a mark more so it is a asking for a reaction to an action (word) or action from the reaction. 

for me it goes like this "Rick" (attention) ... "Yes Geoff" (attention given) "Can you pass me the salt?" (command criteria) You either understand the question pass me the salt, don't understand or hear the question and don't pass the salt or just give me the finger. LOL! If you pass me the salt you get a "Thank you" (jackpot mark) If not unless you don't understand the question you unleash the dragon so you better pass the salt! 



rick smith said:


> fwiw
> my thread was not "how to teach markers to noobs"
> for me a noob gives a bad connotation of being dumb and clueless
> what i asked is exactly what, i wrote so please don't think i only work with clueless dumb shits who know nothing about dogs


Maybe not dumb but IMHO a bit slow off the mark (pardon the pun). :razz: 

Reality all dog training is some form of markers and a series of markers and cues. Every trainer even noobs use markers whether they know it or not. Now whether they understand the 'why' and 'overall picture' or can dig into the details of them with a fine tooth comb .. well that's different.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Karin Sable said:


> I do know about luring.
> 
> But why wait to add command? I never understood the why or the implications of it. Or rather the importance of it.



For me, this falls under the same "Don't name it until you love it" umbrella that non-luring commands fall under. Do you really want to name the command for the sloppy beginnings of teaching (luring or not) an action? Or do you want the dog to associate that command with the perfect action? (The answer for me is B.  )


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_"... but i don't believe that the success or failure of using markers is significantly influenced by the selection of the word .... "_ (Rick Smith)


I don't either .... but a few more hints: I use "nope" as a negative marker (for "Try again"). I learned that from Ed Frawley, who had found that it was easier to give a negative marker that doesn't sound like a correction if he used "nope." I also use marker words that I don't use all the time in general conversation.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

rick smith said:


> Anyone interested in a serious thread about how you teach markers ?
> ....and taking the time to write up your thoughts in some level of detail beyond one liners and short general statements ? ... my reason for posting....
> been working with someone who had many years of "dog experience" but had NO concept of what "markers" was all about.
> - was (and still is) VERY motivated
> ...


I find that clarifying certain features of markers can help. For me (once the marker is loaded), it's how a marker gives the dog an instant "snapshot" of the behavior that elicited the marker/reward.

For me, it's not possible without markers to pinpoint the exact moment that the correct action happened. Fishing out and giving a reward without the marker highlights only an approximate moment in time. Markers are precise.


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

Connie Sutherland said:


> For me, this falls under the same "Don't name it until you love it" umbrella that non-luring commands fall under. Do you really want to name the command for the sloppy beginnings of teaching (luring or not) an action? Or do you want the dog to associate that command with the perfect action? (The answer for me is B.  )


So for me, the precision in preforming the command is much less important. I do want it correct but it doesn't have to be lightening speed and perfect angles. I know that in some of the competitive sports the precision is important so I get that. I will leave that aside for the moment.

I think when you are working with the large majority of clients who are not doing bite sports getting them to focus on precision first, adding the command some time later, is silly. They will not follow through. It will be useless. It adds a layer of complication not needed for most people. So there is no added benefit. 

So lure, command, click (or mark) and treat makes sense to me. Do that enough, dog gets it and we are happy. And again, even though I have a working dog (my dutch), I have been able to achieve a pretty good level of obedience, relatively speaking. I have gotten compliments. But of course he would fail what I understand is preferred in the sports. But he preforms super in the field.

So today with the GSD. She already knows (sort of) commands but it is all sloppy because my husband, whom I love dearly, is sloppy, inconsistent, and unclear. (He likes to talk to his dog in full sentences). I had her out and was working in the street with lots of movement (lots of snow too coming down, yea) and reinforcing her understanding of commands. Sit, click, treat. Down, click, treat. Heel, click, treat. Sit, nope (she offers a down for several commands). Sit click treat. She was having a great time. My goal is to bring more precision (really more understanding and comprehension) for sure. But doesn't have to be extreme. At the end of 10 minutes she was not doing the "down" offer as much. We will see if that sticks.

So I guess I just think in teaching it depends on the client goals and what they will willingly work on. Freyja is destined to be a pet dog (although I think she would have been a SAR phoneme). 

What I have learned so far is that while I was trying to stay out of training her, if I'm going to walk her off lead in the mountains, that is incongruent. Even this little bit of training I see her being more attentive to me. 

My adventure so far.

I


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick said

*Now here is the important part:* It all goes back to "watch me" as well when I say "watch me" that means we also have to watch the dog. The dog here is the key to everything done in markers. Not a specific word or tool, not a trainer not a DVD. Just don't take your eyes off the dog!! The dog is the *KEY* to markers!


This goes back to marker basics.

I don't teach the "watch me" or any other command until the dog connects the marker to the reward.

That's in loading the marker. 

We all probably started with the "Sit" jerk method and it did/does work but the newer method as taught by Ellis is to hold off on the command until the dog understands.


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

Bob Scott said:


> Rick said
> 
> *
> 
> We all probably started with the "Sit" jerk method and it did/does work but the newer method as taught by Ellis is to hold off on the command until the dog understands.*


*

I guess I want to know what you all think of the middle ground. Lure, command mark treat. I didn't even use a leash today so no jerking here. I still don't get what the incremental benefit really is from waiting on the command part.*


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Bob.....

re : "Rick said

Now here is the important part: It all goes back to "watch me" as well when I say "watch me" that means we also have to watch the dog. The dog here is the key to everything done in markers. Not a specific word or tool, not a trainer not a DVD. Just don't take your eyes off the dog!! The dog is the KEY to markers!"

'nope'.....Geoff said


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I would have to agree with Geoff on that one.

Watching the dog is fundamental to just about any dog training and you have to watch the dog to understand the dog. 

Trying to train without watching the dog doesn't make sense to me. :-k:-k:-k


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Bob....
i agree with Geoff too 
was just trying to give credit to him since it was HIS quote, not mine 

one of the most stupid things i see Cesar do is tell his clients to stop watching their dog when they walk it ](*,)](*,)

actually it's pretty easy to say "watch your dog" to a client and for the most part they do. but everyone sees their dog differently just like everyone sees different things when they watch a dvd. just saying watch the dog won't guarantee anything unless they are told what to watch //LOL//

******for me, "walk before you run" means to explain what to look for before you even start walking *******

- not trying to be cryptic, but this is exactly what lead to my Ah Ha moment while teaching markers, and if no one is that interested in getting into the weeds about the thread topic, i'm PERFECTLY OK with that since most of the off topic posts have provided some really good advice
- but there is no sense in writing up a long drawn out post about if others aren't interested in discussing how markers are trained 
- watching the dog, learning more about canine behavior, to lure or not to lure, when to assign a verbal to a command, etc etc is ALL part of dog training but has nothing to do with the specifics of how markers are taught

you have posted more about the topic than others. i do appreciate that and will get back to you regarding specifics of "how do you teach markers"
- i have been just as guilty about going off topic...hard not to comment especially when someone has a serious question, or you feel the need to post something you feel is relevant even if it is a bit off topic

but that's not why i started the thread, and since i did, i can be selfish //ROTFLMAO//


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Geoff

re: "For me verbal cues are asking for 'attention' my dog's name is the first cue always. It gets his attention. Command or asking for a behaviour is not really a mark it is a asking for a behaviour so can't really be a mark especially if the animal doesn't understand the command so a command is not a mark more so it is a asking for a reaction to an action (word) or action from the reaction. 

for me it goes like this "Rick" (attention) ... "Yes Geoff" (attention given) "Can you pass me the salt?" (command criteria) You either understand the question pass me the salt, don't understand or hear the question and don't pass the salt or just give me the finger. LOL! If you pass me the salt you get a "Thank you" (jackpot mark) If not unless you don't understand the question you unleash the dragon so you better pass the salt! "

got it...THANX for expanding
- the analogy of passing the salt is a bit simplistic and for me ... i like specific dog examples rather than analogies, but that's just me ....using markers is different from compulsion training 
- unleashing the dragon implies physical corrections are applied early and that is more like KNPV style to me 
- both approaches can/do work, but for me there are major differences in both routes, and the main distinction of course lies with when you feel the dog has learned the behavior and a dragon appearance is warranted

most people rely on only one quadrant of OC when they talk "marker training" and that's another reason why i want to get into the weeds about how markers are taught

will definitely get back to you later


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> Geoff
> 
> re: "For me verbal cues are asking for 'attention' my dog's name is the first cue always. It gets his attention. Command or asking for a behaviour is not really a mark it is a asking for a behaviour so can't really be a mark especially if the animal doesn't understand the command so a command is not a mark more so it is a asking for a reaction to an action (word) or action from the reaction.
> 
> ...


Well you can interchange your dog's name instead of yours and command the dog to "search" same deal to me, you are really just making it complicated all along. For me that is the issue in why your client hasn't gotten it. I've said it before in this thread 'eye contact' .. click. Rinse and repeat thousands of times. When I say eye contact, that as well means 'WATCH your dog'. That can all morph into progressively more difficult criteria for both the dog and handler. You are a smart guy and I think you are over thinking it. 

As for "unleash the dragon" that is/was a tongue in cheek comment trying to add a bit of humour to my muse. 

Now you really do need to open up your mind here. You said ..


> *using markers is different from compulsion training*


 How so? Do you realize what you said here? 

In reality there is no difference in the dog reading and timing art/part of it. You said in your original post.


> been working with someone who had many years of "dog experience" but had NO concept of what "markers" was all about.
> - was (and still is) VERY motivated
> *- is not a quick learner
> - is not a good reader of canine behavior
> ...


Hmm ... so if the person(s) is all of what is bolded and underlined. Do we really think that they can train a dog with compulsion? Hell NO they can't. That's just a disaster unfolding. 

The only thing different between marker training and compulsion training is the the end criteria at both polar opposite ends. The metering in the middle is exactly the same. To be good at both, you still need to be able to read dogs with some level of eye cognitive ability plus you need to have good co-ordination to be able to 'mark' the behaviour or to apply leash pressure.


----------



## Catherine Gervin (Mar 12, 2012)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"... but i don't believe that the success or failure of using markers is significantly influenced by the selection of the word .... "_ (Rick Smith)
> 
> 
> I don't either .... but a few more hints: I use "nope" as a negative marker (for "Try again"). I learned that from Ed Frawley, who had found that it was easier to give a negative marker that doesn't sound like a correction if he used "nope." I also use marker words that I don't use all the time in general conversation.


i wonder, too, if the way we say "nope" vs. "no" is just inherently softer...i'm trying to picture someone screaming "NOPE" at a dog/child/car/etc. and it doesn't exactly compute. i mean, "Mom" can be said in all kinds of ways--and so can curse words, for that matter--but it feels like "nope" has subconscious roots in a mild negativity so maybe it comes out as a milder rebuke?


----------



## Catherine Gervin (Mar 12, 2012)

not to clog up the works, but does anyone have thoughts on using verbal clicking sounds--to mean numerous things, like "hey, look at me" or as a warning before giving a correction, or to get the dog to go back around the lamp post so the leash doesn't wrap, all to the same dog--in addition to worded commands? she responds to both as desired (that is, she understands what i'm trying to convey, not that she always obeys) but is it making things more complicated for my dog or are we o.k.?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

why do you "load" a marker ?
- duh.......to give it meaning so the dog will understand what it means 

so how do you "load" a negative marker ?
when do you teach this marker ?
how do you teach it ?

would like to hear from others how they do it, or explain why they don't

loading the positive marker is a piece of cake and that is the only marker i ever hear that gets 'loaded' 
- it's usually the first thing that gets discussed when discussing markers

in my opinion, this is one of the questions that gets to the core of how to teach markers.......unless you only use one 

since this is yet to be discussed in detail, i'll start with that, and believe me folks, i am NOT overthinking this topic !

i've said i teach a negative marker EARLY, even when doing a basic eye game. almost as easy as the positive marker and puts ZERO stress or aversion on ANY dog that is not a total nutcase bag of nerves 

teaching markers is NOT rocket science
teaching a dog how to get a Ring3 title IS, and goes far beyond what this thread was and is intended for AND requires MUCH more training skill and finesse than most dog owners are capable of

Geoff has said he has too many markers to list....i'll leave it at that
i don't want to make it a me/Geoff thread

I think Bob has said he uses two

that's about it so far
seems hard to say how you would teach em if you don't start by saying what ones you use ..... or am i overthinking that too //LOL//

if people who have been frustrated or given up markers would explain their experiences it might help this thread too
- because it might help point out the weaknesses in the training methods 

my gut feeling has always been that markers may have worked fine when simple stuff was taught, but started to fail when a more complex behavior was being learned 
- then, the markers go out the window and yank/crank corrections becomes the rule of the day


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> so how do you "load" a negative marker ?
> when do you teach this marker ?
> how do you teach it ?


Speaking from experience, using an e-collar does it really fast. I paired it with a clicker so I could then just use the clicker later. Anything that has a negative association paired to it can become a negative marker.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> why do you "load" a marker ?
> - duh.......to give it meaning so the dog will understand what it means
> 
> so how do you "load" a negative marker ?
> ...


Well Rick I trained a dog to Ring 3 and I used the same practical and theory from the beginning from the beginning. It wasn't rocket science. Maybe more refined but you ebb and flow the training as to what the exercise requires the same. Or what you deem as important criteria to complete the task. 

Rick there is a reason why I said my list of markers is an extensive one. Because dog training is a language upon itself. Charging a mark is great and that is just the surface of what we can accomplish with them. In my experience and what happened for me was once you have really mastered marker training, most likely you will notice that you have a much more subtle understanding of the emotional impact your actions have on your dog...I always try to remind people that dogs are "emotional mirrors"...in the short term, using the clicker takes the "background noise" or "unintended emotional content" out of the process.  But you can use other means at your disposal those unintended emotional responses as markers and cues as well. 

I'll try by best to touch on how I train and teach markers the way I do. As WDF members we all should know or have heard of operant conditioning and the 4 quadrants of them so I am not going to babble on about that. For me how I apply markers is based on the 4 quadrants of operant conditioning using the base of classical conditioning i.e Pavlov's dog as a foundation. 

First thing Rick.. * Take away the glamour around the word “positive.”* In learning theory it just indicates an additive operation. And “negative” indicates a subtractive one. Hence our first set of word definitions:

• Positive means that something is added after a behavior
• Negative means that something is taken away after a behavior
 
The thing that gets added could be something really great (a treat), or it could be something uncomfortable, like a pop with a prong collar. Likewise the thing that gets taken away could be something you’ll miss, like that treat, or it could be something that gives you relief when it stops, like a lessening of leash pressure.

And that sets us up to talk about these “somethings” as consequences and pairing that with a negative marker. 

Now we need to lose the idea that reinforcement is good and punishment is bad. Here is our second set of definitions:

• Reinforcers are behavior-increasing consequences
• Punishers are behavior-decreasing consequences
 
Yes that sounds really dry, but that’s the way we need to think if we really want to understand this. We need to rid ourselves of the other definitions of these terms that leak into our head from the pure positive Animal Rights mindset that bombards us on our facebook feeds everyday.

Now let’s combine these four items into definitions of the four possible processes:

• Positive reinforcement: Something is added after a behavior, which results in the behavior happening more often.

• Negative reinforcement: Something is removed after a behavior, which results in the behavior happening more often.

• Positive punishment: Something is added after a behavior, which results in the behavior happening less often.

• Negative punishment: Something is removed after a behavior, which results in the behavior happening less often.

So Positive reinforcement is 1 corner of the sphere. Markers that I have used "_YES", Click, "VOILA' "Good boy Good Boy Good Boy"_ and many others I can't think of. This is always paired with a toy exploding out of my pocket or remotely. One consistent thing is my body language and my voice's demeanor. So I always wonder if it was the words paired with the emotional content I put forth in the 'marking' part. 

2nd corner of the sphere: Negative reinforcement. Markers that I have used are usually calming ones .. in a different tone of voice. " Gooood Goood" "Ga" "Nice" Usually has involved a release of pressure for when a dog complies to a command. I'll tie that in with calm body language and may even use tactile touch via petting the dog etc.

3rd corner of the sphere: The often derided and dreaded Positive Punishment. "NO" "HEY" or even the dog's name said with a sharp tone of voice. Used to stop an undesirable behaviour usually paired with some sort of corrective tool and a different more in your face body language from me. 

4th Corner of the sphere: Negative Punishment. "aNNNN", "nope" "ah ah" "wrong" paired usually with withholding of reward that was previously within reach. Then asking the dog to offer another behaviour. Again it is a different body language and demeanor with another learned projection of some different emotional content. 

So those are an incomplete list of some of the markers I use. All of these are paired with body language and put into some sort of emotional context for the benefit of the training at that specific time and for the specific dog I'm training. 

You can teach classical conditioning to a person i.e charge the mark. That is not the issue with markers at all. The important part of teaching markers is being able to set the student up for success in reading what the dog offers so that the criteria is repeatable before moving ahead in difficulty. What is the difficult part is the dog reading part. Which is why I am always on my students to WATCH their dogs. 

I'm not sure much more that I can say on the subject Rick. There really isn't no magic 'marker' it is all ebb and flow and a constant state of flux. Read the behaviours, watch the dog, shape the behaviours keep watching, keep trying for the umpteenth time. That is training with markers. 

Basically in order to really train a dog. It is not about training the dog to be semi-human, it is more about the handler to open themselves up to thinking and becoming more like a dog.​


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick, thanks for he clarification on the dog watching.

I was wondering what I was missing. :grin:




Catherine Gervin said:


> i wonder, too, if the way we say "nope" vs. "no" is just inherently softer...i'm trying to picture someone screaming "NOPE" at a dog/child/car/etc. and it doesn't exactly compute. i mean, "Mom" can be said in all kinds of ways--and so can curse words, for that matter--but it feels like "nope" has subconscious roots in a mild negativity so maybe it comes out as a milder rebuke?



I learned "Nope" from Connie and I can say it's been a great help because of my temperament.

It's always been hard for me to say "No" without it sounding harsh.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I looked at marker training as OP for a long time simply because I didn't understand it as it should be and I didn't use physical corrections (+P).

Since then I agree that it really isn't true OP without using +P.

The term Purely Positive pretty much makes me belch up sour little curds from my stomach now. :-o :grin:


For ME I use primarily one word for the marker and that's "yes".

I have also taught both my dogs to respond to the clicker but I rarely us it. 

I use a calm "goood" as a bridge, meaning I like what I see and continue what your doing.

I eliminate the bridge asap in order to keep the dog from developing it as a necessary part of the behavior but I will use it again when training a new behavior.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Geoff
we are MUCH more alike in our training styles than you may think 

i learned the principles of OC in the late 70's ... with marine mammals in the Navy
applied it to and still use OC with canines as well as the 'felines' i live with 

i am VERY familiar with the four quadrants and teach the scientific meaning of positive and negatives in terms of adding and subtracting stimulus to increase or decrease behaviors, ather than punishing or praise that has developed over time when clicker trainers only relied on praise (because it was the easiest quadrant to apply, and who felt positive punishment was either unfair or abusive to a dog)

if anyone reviews the markers i listed that i use, i would hope that it would be clear that all my markers can be used operantly; to increase behaviors i want and decrease behaviors i don't want. compared to Geoff's, it's a shorter list, but they are all i need to train operantly

we all train dogs to do things we want them to do or not do rather than allow them to live by their own rules. that is the ego side of dog training.
- it starts when they are pups.....we teach them to pee/poop when and where WE want them to, and we move on from there 
- i use markers to teach those esential basic behaviors, and continue using markers throughout the life of the dog 

more later ....


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Getting a FR3 title IS rocket science and you are a rocket scientist Geoff

if it wasn't, everyone who started in Ring would have ring 3 titles on their dogs
...unless you think it's all about finding a Ring3 dog in puppy litters //ROTFLMAO//

to train easy stuff is easy 
to learn what markers are about is easy
to "THINK" markers and apply them at the same time when you are training is hard as hell and for most it can border on rocket science....so they give up


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Good thread, but not what I was trying to discuss, so it's a wrap for me.
Thanx for those who took time to give it some thought and post serious responses

I'll try to re-write it and make it clearer at another time....


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Geoff Empey said:


> Basically in order to really train a dog. It is not about training the dog to be semi-human, it is more about the handler to open themselves up to thinking and becoming more like a dog.


Geoff,

Forgive me for chopping down your long post but I wanted to thank you for your efforts. Your posts are extremely well thought out and excellently worded. I have learned a lot from reading your responses especially because of how you write. You don't talk down to or belittle anyone whether the question is from a "serious" pet owner or a "novice" one. You discuss it thoroughly and without silly teasers or getting your fur up.

The best thing I like about this forum is that *if* a person is willing to accept other points of view (or even criticism) that you can really learn a lot. Thank You.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

I was interested in clicker training and had been doing some reading about it, but it was a video of a trainer free shaping a dog to close a kitchen drawer that really inspired me to try with my own dog. No words, no luring, just the trainer on a stool, a clicker and a pile of treats and the dog, in about 7-8 minutes, figured out what she wanted. Very cool.

So I decided to free shape an article indication (dog in down with object between paws and nose touch). I think I am lucky with my Mal in that he is very responsive and understood the game very quickly. He will try stuff and throw behaviours at me, where my DS gets frustrated quicker when she doesn’t understand what I want her to do. Then I took a clicker agility class to learn more about it and get some experienced input to what I was doing. 

For me, for teaching my dog something new, I love marker training. I like watching the wheels spin in my dog’s tiny brain while he tries to figure out what I want, and his sense of success when he gets it right and knows he’s gotten it right. I had a harder time with my old Labx, who was much slower to grasp the concept of how the human treat dispensing slot machine worked, but he did eventually figure out that touching the non-treat hand got the click and reward. 

I like the clicker, but I will also use, YES, if I don’t have it with me. I train with the idea the click is the release. Without the clicker, BREAK is my release word. I do use a no reward marker – a ‘good try, but not right, keep going’ cue, which is UH UH. For duration, I do similar to Geoff, a low, quick goodgoodgood, or g, g, g,g,g,g… also something I picked up from Kayce Cover. 

When people have asked me to help with training their dogs, I have tried to teach them about clicker training, but I get the feeling that they don’t see it as real training and that teaching the absolute basics, like eye contact or a nose touch, isn’t going to help with their dog’s behaviour issues. If I was working with someone actually motivated, I would still start with the basics of eye contact. Maybe also box games – just having the dog interact with a box and reward random behaviours, and/or free shape simple things like front feet in the box. Small success to build on. 

Marker training was part of Schutzhund training when I was with a club, though not initially. Trying to get my mentor to click for me at the right moment to reward my dog’s perfect heeling was something she had a hard time grasping. Just too unfamiliar a concept for her at that time. At a seminar I attended a few years later, the trainer, a world’s level competitor, explained it to us as - dogs see in photographs, so capturing that exact moment helps clarify the picture of what precisely is being asked and rewarded. Clearly marker training had been working for her, judging by her success on the field. 

A bit random and rambling, but I haven’t had a chance to post, so have been collecting my thoughts for a few days. I see Rick has bailed from this thread, but going to post anyway. Still don't know what Rick's ah ha moment was that he was going to share, or did I miss it somewhere in this thread?


----------



## Karin Sable (Aug 31, 2014)

I don't know what Rick intended with this thread either. Why do threads just die on this forum? Sad really. Could be more than it is... seems like a lot of these are dead ends. Best to you all.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Karin and Leslie...

i don't care to post open ended threads that can go in any direction. that's just me. 
- a lot of people start a thread by simply posting a vid link or a short sentence...that's not me either 

"bailing" has a negative connotation of quitting and i don't consider myself a quitter by any stretch

i'll explain why i was done with my thread shortly, but just 'cause i can't discuss what i wanted to discuss doesn't mean the thread had no value 
..actually it lasted longer than some other threads and for the most part was serious


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

I like how threads sometimes wander off in strange directions. Perhaps not the intent at the beginning, but often some good information gets posted or just entertaining reading results. The OP can always jump back in and redirect, or let it go off on its own path.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

This thread was asking how you SPECIFICALLY teach markers
The specific techniques of teaching anything has to start with recognizing the various ways to teach anything

First, i propose that if you don’t understand and recognize that ALL teaching methods basically fall into two categories (teacher centered and student centered), you cannot discuss how you teach any type of dog training. And that is true whether or not you ever even considered this, and don’t think about it when you teach. It’s reality
- Once you accept it, you can analyze HOW you teach, and, just like the principles of OC (operant conditioning), it applys for dogs the same as for people. dogs don’t communicate verbally, but that doesn’t mean the priciples don’t apply for dogs too. it just means your choice to use “language" (words, sounds, clicks or any other means) is more limited
- i realize not all will agree with this. some think if you develop a strong bond with your dog, these sounds will become a language and you can do your communication verbally. i don’t agree but don’t want to get into that discussion. it’s a thread all by itself and would be interesting too 

For me, this DEFINITELY means you need to decide who you are teaching when you are working with a dog AND a handler. Are you gonna teach the dog or the human ? Of course you are teaching both the dog AND the handler, but you have to set a priority unless you are working one on one with a dog and the handler is not present.
- people like Geoff may be able to do more with both, but most mortals don’t, and unless you train people for a living and have done it successfully for many years, my advice is “don’t try”. i’m a ‘decent’ trainer and been at it a long time, but when i reviewed my methods of teaching and simplified them, and RE-set my priorities, my students got better MUCH quicker ! (that was the beginning of my “ah ha” moment 
- but it doesn't bother me that no one asked what my "ah ha" moment was //LOL//

- AND….you can certainly do more work with the handler alone, when the dog is NOT with them. Bob pointed out one drill in my last thread. All too often the new handler and dog are worked together. that’s just the way it happens  the only time this gets mentioned on the WDF is advice to ‘walk thru’ the trial course without the dog 
- actually there are MANY different kinds of reps and sets you can do with only the handler. It's only limited by your imagination, and i think we would all agree the best trainers have the most imagination. For me, i think it is an often forgotten side of training

For me, this has been a way to make the KISS principle even simpler, NOT to “overthink anything. Just to look at what i do in a different way than i ever had before, so I needed to go back to the basics of what the heck teaching really meant 

Second, my recent thread was to look at training markers from the METHODS of teaching, And also to discuss why it is important to recognize the dfferent methods, and lastly discuss how it helped me when i struggled with a particualr student. It was NOT to try and define what criteria a student needed to be able to train their dog. I only described the student’s background because I thought it was VERY relevant. If I could help a strudent who was lacking in a lot of the so called “essential” dog skills, it seemd to me it would help those who DO have more skills that much more.
- the “ah ha” moment came when i ha been focused on teaching markers. That’s why i wanted to know how others taught markers, or hear from people who had started learning markers and gave up for whatever reason. i have been using markers for so many years i do not think about the timing anymore….the muscle memory and mind set is already there. but simply demonstarting did NOT get results beyond being able to teach a student and their dog to play the eye contact game or teaching a simple game of tugging with an out.
- it also made me see my methods of teaching luring were only effective at a VERY basic level because i was focusing on the dog and the student at the same time. as soon as i seperated the reps and sets, and did simpler, seperated sets with both, the handler improved faster and so did the dog 

i’ll use a few examples to try and explain how the methods of teaching might apply ….. examples we’ve all heard a thousand times 
**note** …. i often speak of training in terms of reps and sets …it’s the way i learned and don’t want to explain that terminology, so if you don’t get it, don’t worry //lol//

1. "watch my demo and let me show you how it’s done….(then copy me)"
the traditional method of dog training is teacher centered ……it’s probably the way most everyone starts out whether they do this consciouly or not….it just happens. but then, the student will subconsciously decide who they will REALLY watch … you or the dog you’re with …. the more inexperienced they are the LESS they will see of both  few trainers ever make it crystal clear whether the student should watch you or the dog, or vice versa.
- but if YOU the trainer really believes in the "walk before you run" mantra, the student will learn faster if one or the other is watched, but NOT both at the same time. This is VERY simple to do and doesn’t take much more time at all….simply do the rep twice and have them switch focus 
- i have tested this many times and asked students what they saw…everytime, there were many things they did not see, and this is especially true when you are teaching ‘timing’, which we ALL agree is an essential element of marker training, and any aspect of dog training
- bottom line …. keep it more simple for the student and they will learn more and learn faster. make sure you tell them EXACTLY what to watch and DO NOT expect them to see everything they need to see the first time the rep is demonstrated

2. "keep trying….rinse and repeat….even if it takes a thousand times" … til you get it 
this happens often when markers are discussed
- in my opinion this is wrong, and soooo easy to keep repeating mistakes and developing the muscle memory it requires to repeat them 
- until you can get one set correct, don’t repeat sets

3. "watch the dog…the dog will tell you what’s happening and what you’re doing wrong….READ the dog"
- the problem with that is that YOU, the ‘trainer’ cannot watch both the dog and the handler. you have to make a choice which you will watch, and your eyes are constantly scanning back and forth, so you WILL miss something. our brain is capable of that processing, but the ability to recall it is what is limited and only improves over time. solution : break the drill down into a more simpler rep (repetition), or make them do double reps and it will get learned quicker

4. "only correct the dog after it knows the command"
- heard this a MILLION times but NEVER heard an explantion of how and WHEN you know the dog “knows the command” “ 
- this EXACT question has been asked on this forum more than once and it has NEVER been discussed in any detail, yet most everyone agrees corrections are an essential part of dog training
- and this ALWAYS comes up when the methods of using a clicker or verbal to mark correct behavior comes up. There is NO foundation being laid for corrections because it is all positive 

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify a few things about what I was trying to discuss in my recent thread

If all you have is your personal dog, or dogs, and simply wanna “have fun” with em and enjoy life, none of this will probably be of any interest 
** unless ** you or the dog has a problem, or a problem crops up while you are having fun. Then it might be worth some self evaluation and analyze what you are doing from a different perspective
*But* …. with that said, i am not trying to belittle anyone and imply “ALL” you have is a “pet dog”. 

****IMNSHO, ALL our dogs should be our “pets”; even if they have a professional job or compete on a trial field

Too many people think a problem is either dog or handler caused. I have since learned it can also be trainer caused and am not afraid to admit it. been guilty many times  whether you are a trainer, or are just training your own dog, the teaching methods you are using will probably improve if more self analyisis is applied. Not simply what you are teaching but “how” you are teaching. Even if you are teaching yourself 

by the way, i’m NOT trying to resurrect this thread and not looking for responses; just a clarification in my usual, brief, succinct way //rotflmao//

i was looking at TEACHING METHODOLOGY for teaching markers, and that was not an attention getter, so i consider that topic a “dead horse” and don’t see any sense in trying to resurrect it again.

didn’t want anyone to think i bailed without a reason …. or got my feathers ruffled …. i tried a few times to re-direct and keep it on the topic i started the thread with, but others didn’t want to go there
… still an interesting thread

i don’t overthink things but i do like to look at things with a variety of perspectives, and constantly try to think outside the box and apply techniques in more imaginative ways. it’s how i can keep learning and improving

been using markers for decades and sold on it as the best way to apply operant conditioning. it's a shame more people don't stick with it and i will always be interested in learning why that happens and for me, it just might have a lot to do on the way we apply our methods of teaching, not just the subject itself

keeping it simple is never simple except on paper and in cyberspace  ;-)


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Sarah Platts said:


> Geoff,
> 
> Forgive me for chopping down your long post but I wanted to thank you for your efforts. Your posts are extremely well thought out and excellently worded. I have learned a lot from reading your responses especially because of how you write. You don't talk down to or belittle anyone whether the question is from a "serious" pet owner or a "novice" one. You discuss it thoroughly and without silly teasers or getting your fur up.
> 
> The best thing I like about this forum is that *if* a person is willing to accept other points of view (or even criticism) that you can really learn a lot. Thank You.


No worries Sarah I appreciate the positive feedback. Basically I was there at one time here as well. People here gave their time to me as well. So I'm always grateful for that and if I can give back and help someone out, it is worth doing.



rick smith said:


> Getting a FR3 title IS rocket science and you are a rocket scientist Geoff
> 
> if it wasn't, everyone who started in Ring would have ring 3 titles on their dogs
> ...unless you think it's all about finding a Ring3 dog in puppy litters //ROTFLMAO//
> ...


I can understand that where people get frustrated Rick. Believe me training a R3 dog with the limited resources I have available is difficult. I'm no way a rocket scientist though maybe a bit OCD when it comes to training but that's it. That being said


> to train easy stuff is easy
> to learn what markers are about is easy


 Sure it is and training a Ring 3 dog just utilizes those simple concepts what makes it hard is the ginourmous amount of tasks and the variations of the of the pressure and scenarios that the bite work portion offers. At that point it has nothing to do about markers, it more about the preparation of the dog and the dog itself. My last trial I got my ass handed to me the decoys knew my dog, I over trained leading up to it and overthought the training, I was distracted as it was my first apprentice judging and super stressed made handler lots of mistakes, oh well kaa kaa happens. Back to the drawing board as they say.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

I think where I got lost, Rick, was in the "teaching markers". I don't think it was clear that what you were asking was how to teach markers to another handler, rather than to the dog. 

Thank you for sharing your ah ha moments in training. I continue to learn from this forum.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick said

"Too many people think a problem is either dog or handler caused. I have since learned it can also be trainer caused and am not afraid to admit it. been guilty many times :smile: whether you are a trainer, or are just training your own dog, the teaching methods you are using will probably improve if more self analyisis is applied. Not simply what you are teaching but “how” you are teaching. Even if you are teaching yourself :smile:"


This can be HUGE.

Often a trainer will teach only what worked for his/her dog and may not give consideration to the individual clients dog. 

The good trainers should at the very least demonstrate with their own dog and then discuss the how and why it works for their dog and, with a bit of watching then work with them on the how and why with the clients dog. 

When I taught OB classes it was a necessity to figure out the individual handler AND the dog if you expected them to succeed.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> The good trainers should at the very least demonstrate with their own dog and then discuss the how and why it works for their dog and, with a bit of watching then work with them on the how and why with the clients dog.


I helped teach a series of trailing seminars several years ago outside the U.S. What I found interesting was the students expected to see the instructor's dog work (yes, I did take my dog). The idea being that the instructor's dog was the representative model. That if you couldn't train your own dog to do it - and do it correctly - then how good an instructor were you, really? I've seen a lot of people over the years. Some talk the game but can't perform it themselves. Some can do the game but have a hard time conveying the information. The best are the ones who can do both.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Sarah Platts said:


> Some talk the game but can't perform it themselves. Some can do the game but have a hard time conveying the information. The best are the ones who can do both.


This. Having someone who can show me what it's supposed to look like, then help me get there with my dog is when you know I'm working with a really good trainer/coach/mentor.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

leslie cassian said:


> This. Having someone who can show me what it's supposed to look like, then help me get there with my dog is when you know I'm working with a really good trainer/coach/mentor.


There is this about instructors (my pet peeve) are the ones who appear to be good trainers. These are the ones on the seminar circuit. The methods seem sound but for some reason the instructor can't train their own dog to perform. I know one well known individual who couldn't train one of their own dogs enough or make them capable enough to pass the certifying test. So does that lack or inability make them less qualified to teach?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Didn't read the whole thread yet but to teach them hand/eye/marker coordination. Give them a clicker, find a "whack a mole" game and tell them to click each time BEFORE they whack the mole.


----------

