# Please read and respond



## Bob Scott

I put this article in another forum last spring. http://www.flyingdogpress.com/rewards.html
This covers what I and some others on this forum do in our training. 
I'd love to hear some discussion and reasons from those who do things differently. 
This discussion is NOT to tear down other's methods because we wouldn't be doing what we do if it didn't work, regardless of our methods. 
They ALL have merit!
TIA!


----------



## Tim Martens

ok. long article. i'll comment as i read:

1) first thing i'll say is that it seems like this lady is splitting hairs. specifically between her definitions of lures and bribes.

2) i don't see how she can say a bribe, as she describes it, can NOT be considered training. the example she gives of the out: dog has carcass and you trade it for a piece of cheese. if you give a command just prior to giving the dog the cheese, will the dog eventually learn to out on just the command? sounds like training to me...

3) "My dogs will work for food, for praise/petting, for tennis balls, sticks or Frisbees, and seem to live for the thrill of attacking a running garden hose." this sounds an awful lot like a bribe by her definitions.

4) she tries to hard to "humanize" her dog theories

5) again, she speaks of the importance of randomized intervals for rewards. even if you randomize the "rewards", the dog is still working for them. 

i think there two general philosophies on this. reward or no reward. she seems to try and straddle the fence or is trying to justify her reward system. 

reward...bribe...lure...they're the same thing to me and i will use them when i need to....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I started to read it, and realized that this is the kind of crap that makes newbies think they have found heaven, then eventually drop off from confusion. 

It falls in line with the adds in Dog World magazine with the no food, no collars, no leashes, no watches, while blindfolded crap that the mystical Brittany and her 300 pound GSD, Dobe, and Rott all learned apparently from instructional video.

How dare you post crap like this.


----------



## Lyn Chen

I like to think of lures as using food to get the dog into position, rewards as something that follows a mark as soon as the dog performs the desire behaviour, and bribes as candy-coated compulsion.  

I use treats in the instructional phase to teach the dog to mind what I say. In other words I want him to learn three phases...one, I say a command, two, he does something, three, I mark it which tells him he did what I want him to do. I want the dog to listen and look for the mark, and it's very easy to teach using food because in the early stages, the dog thinks the mark means "food is coming". But because dogs mature as people do he will later learn that this means "That's right." I don't think of the mark as praise or encouragement...and because the dog learns to seek the mark for his own personal gain in the beginning, he learns to throw behaviours at me which is very useful for teaching in the future. He knows the learning process, and if I'm not saying anything then something's not right and he's going to try and do something else until he gets it right.

Later on, I wean off treats to toy rewards. This is for the purpose of the Schutzhund obedience seen on field. I want the dog in drive and pretty on field, so I teach him to EXPECT a reward on field. Then the variable reward system. He knows the steps leading to pretty obedience on the field, so when we're doing this he thinks I always have a ball or a tug on me. Maybe I do. Out of the field, or when the Schutzhund routine is over, I don't give rewards for anything I ask for when he's older except the mark and praise after that. Partly because I don't really carry a ball or tug or a hotdog with me all the time :roll: but also because I want to preserve the drive for when he knows we're doing picture-pretty stuff. I use different commands for some of the same actions, only he has a different mindset when doing them. 

I think the best thing is food teaches your dog that what you say isn't just a bunch of nonsense. So he learns to communicate with you at an early age (by this I mean he understands your words, without having to rely on too much guidance). Hand signals are good and something I find dogs instinctively obey but not practical all the time, and a no-no in Schutzhund obedience, so I don't want the dog to rely on them. 

Later on when you're teaching him new things it becomes easier since he knows the drill...you say a new command, he does an action, he gets marked. At the later stages for me anyway the dog gets rewarded if I want him to continue repeating the exercise on his own for a certain amount of time with a fast, energetic response, or not if I just want him to learn a word (for example I don't have to treat him for pooping :wink.


----------



## Bob Scott

Interesting responses!
This is also how we do our bite work only the reward is the bite itself. Not a toy or food then. No corrections! It works!
Jeff, my button is WAY to high for you to push. :lol:    :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I realize this is only a tangent, but I'm curious.

If food is not used as a reward (which is fine! Great! No problem! :wink: ), does that mean that food is free? A given? That the dog has no requirement for earning food?

Or in a no-tangible-rewards training system, are there still certain behaviors required before food is given?

If there are, then isn't the food a reward for the behavior?

Or I guess it would be a lure or bribe, to split those hairs, if the food is displayed or referred to before the behavior is required?


----------



## Tim Martens

interesting question connie. i would expect the no bribe people to say that yes, food is free. a given at the end of the day. anything else and yes, your statement that it is nothing more than a reward, bribe, lure would be correct...


----------



## Bob Scott

The food no longer is used as a lure or bribe once the exercise is learned by the dog but it will still keep on doing what's required. That's where the randomness comes in. The dog KNOWS it will come.
Food training is no harder to wean off of then compulsion. 
Neither can go on the trial field but the dog will continue in anticipation of either the reward of the correction.
The good part of training with the bite being the reward is that it's right in front of the dog. 
The only time that can be a problem is if the dog is patterened trained. Then it knows when it gets the bite. This makes the other exercises less valuable to the dog. 
We don't pattern train.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> The food no longer is used as a lure or bribe once the exercise is learned by the dog but it will still keep on doing what's required. That's where the randomness comes in. The dog KNOWS it will come.
> Food training is no harder to wean off of then compulsion.
> Neither can go on the trial field but the dog will continue in anticipation of either the reward of the correction.
> The good part of training with the bite being the reward is that it's right in front of the dog.
> The only time that can be a problem is if the dog is patterened trained. Then it knows when it gets the bite. This makes the other exercises less valuable to the dog.
> We don't pattern train.


Excellent explanation, especially of the biggest problem with pattern training. 8)


----------



## Bob Scott

This is also wher I see the big difference between reward training or compulsion.
Will a dog work harder to win something it wants, or will it work harder to avoid correction? 
IMHO, even a strong dog will work for something it wants. maybe even harder because it IS so strong. 
With the level of correction some of these strong dogs need to comply, why wouldn't they work for something it enjoys.
Tim, does a good street dog need a correction in order to bite the bad guy? Heck no!
The way we train, we have no out problems with our dogs because the dog knows that the out is the key to getting it's reward. Another bite! 
With a really strong dog, many will fight through compulsion for fear of loosing the bite. That's a big factor in out problems. It knows it will loose the bite after it outs.


----------



## Liz Monty

Hi Bob. I began learning about training dogs with the reward and bribe system. I soon found out that I had no REAL control of their behaviours when they decided to do something different or unwanted by me. I am a strong believer that no matter how much time is put into reward and bribery, the same dog will at some point choose it's own desires and ignore all attempts to regain their control or obedience. Especially in a working breed of high drive/protection/civil/stubborn/ etc. Eventually no amount of reward will stop them from an action that is undesireable. That action could be attacking a neighbor, a dog or running onto a road after a squirrel or deer.
When I stopped using reward, I gained control of the dogs. 
I don't know how to explain what I do, just that I first bond as a playmate/leader, then I expand the leadership and control. I guess I get the control by not letting the dog get away with a behaviour to begin with. I am ready to take control before they are able to achieve control. I use long-lines to teach the recall, I use leaving them to force their knowledge that if they wish to follow, then they have to do the obstacle (ladder, slippery floors, stairs, etc.). I make them so bonded that they want to follow willingly. I don't punish if a lesson is not learned, but I do punish if I am challenged by them.
I give praise in the way of telling them they did good, and I have a set of words that give meaning to each situation. They learn from the first day they arrive. For instance if I want the dog to learn to open a drawer I may first teach the search ability. When the dog is easily searching and finding the drawer with the narcotic or scent of choice, then I will praise for the find and add the word "open". I just keep repeating the word and watch the different behaviours unfold. The dog may move back or may alert to the scent again and again, but I do not praise it. I just repeat the word "open" and finally the dog will maybe touch the handle with it's nose and THERE, I praise. But I continue in the same lesson and keep repeating the word "open", the dog may touch the handle 20 times with it's nose again, but I only praise the nose touching that exceeds the previous strength of the ones I praised already. Kind of like a stepping block. The further the dog gets to the end result the higher/louder my tone of praise. Finally they get the point and that is the one I continue to praise each time. Then they know what I wanted.
For bad behaviours, I don't redirect, I direct. If I have a puppy on a long line and it does not turn when I turn, then it gets a unwelcome pop of that line at the same time I say "HERE". It only takes about 4 pops in change of direction for the puppy to learn that the only way is to follow me. Keep an eye on my direction and change when I change. I don't use the work BAD nor the word COME, they are too common and confuse the dog. These are words we use in everyday conversation, so why use the same word for a command? 
I am very patient, and will stay for an hour or two if I have to to teach a behaviour. The dog does not get praise until the behaviour begins to take shape. Each little move forward towards the behaviour get a praise, but NOT if any undesireable behaviour is in there with it. For instance, back to the narcotic drawer. If the dog is told "OPEN' but he jumps and barks before touching his nose to the handle I will not praise. I will only praise when he just touches the handle. That way it is clear to him what the praise is for. I like to look at the training like the dog has a brain and he can learn. I don't like the thought that a dog needs to be tricked into a behaviour because he will get a reward. That stunts the dog's ability to use his head and figure things out on his own.


----------



## Bob Scott

Liz, on the contrary! We give the dog options to to something for a rerward. If it chooses something other then what we want, it gets nothing. The dog definately has to think it's way through the problem instead of correcting when it does wrong. Motivational is ALL about choices for the dog.
One of our TDs favorite comments is "Ignore $#!+ behaviour".
As far as the dog eventually doing something that is undesirable, that is all about imprionting the control when a puppy. 
You mentioned a dog running in the road after a squirrel or a deer. Receintly I was leaving a house I've been rehabbing and a big cat ran right under Thunder's nose. He took off after it, no more then a foot behind it. All I did was give a platz command. He dropped like a sack of wet mice (Thanks Woody  ). 
His platz was taught the same way everything else was . Motivational! No correction!
This is a strong, high drive/protective/civil dog that is almost three yr old that has never had a correction on the training field. 
Stubborn? Not a bit, but that's all about early imprinting.
Control, IMHO, has nothing to do with corrections. It's about your connection and leadership with your dog.


----------



## Liz Monty

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I know very many people who agree with you. It's just me, I refuse to take any chance at all that a dog may disregard my command when their safety or a persons safety is in jeoprody (if I spelled that word right, lol). I am more of a less reward type of person because I have lost control of dogs before and it's a scary and embarrassing thing. I have watched too many friends use reward/trick type training, I don't mean your working dogs are Trick trained at all, just a phrase for some dogs. And i've had to hear about their dogs being killed by cars, taken friends to the hospital because they got in the middle of dog fights. The last time I ever used a reward - food, toy was when my dog took off into the woods after a pack of coyotees and I didn't know if I would ever see her alive again. That is why I am so bound and determined to avoid reward in the way of food or toys. I prefer to feel that I have control out of respect and leadership. I guess I could call it dominance gained by only allowing the dog to see the correct way of doing things. 
Although, many dogs like yours, who would platz instantly are very well trained indeed. I'm just not using the same route to get there, but it doesn't mean your route is bad or wrong, just not one that makes me feel sure of myself at all times. And if I don't feel sure, then I would feel responsible for any accidents or aggressions that where unwanted.
I've already had to live with a few of those and i still feel the guilt.


----------



## Lyn Chen

I agree Bob. Whether you reward or not has nothing to do with the actual control of your dog. You will have better control of your dog regardless of how he's trained if he respects you. Motivational training alone isn't enough...dog training shouldn't involve a single system, it should account for every aspect of the dog and owner's behaviors and lifestyle.


----------



## Liz Monty

Bob, in the way I mean correction, I don't mean an outburst of anger or a threat of harm to the dog. I mean that I don't allow the dog to achieve the unwanted behaviour. If I am training a platz, I will keep a lead on the dog, step one: walk with dog, stop, and say Platz. The dog does nothing of course, so then I kneel down and with the lead gently guide the dog/puppy of course into a down position. Not to the point of a struggle. If the dog is unwilling, I will simply use my hand and pat the floor by his front feet and ease his back end downward. No food lure at all. Soon they get it, I haven't had trouble with that. There are some dogs who when older would eat you alive if they where trained like that as an adult, but that is why I like pups, LOL.
Now my story may change a little if someone placed me with an adult, civil dog who was saying NO to me.
For training the pup to Place same is Platz but a more relaxed lay down and rest type command. Keep the lead on and down the dog in the place of choice, stay with the dog, every time he gets up, immediately return him to the place and again command a down. The lesson is learned in relatively half an hour with most dogs/pups, and the handler should be able to go sit across the room and watch TV until the dog is released from the PLACE command. So I guess I am using a lot of compulsion. But I do it gently and I would never do it in everyday training if I saw fear of stress becoming a factor.

Also, I use the word DROP normally instead of Platz, and it is taught the same way. I recall the dog from a few feet at first, grab the lead and down the dog. As he gets better at it, I move to further distances until it is a reliable DROP on command with the dog coming or leaving me.

My god I'm long winded, just one more blabbering on; I do reward by showing my love to the dog with patting, praising, saying good boy, and some old fashioned baby talk at times. but only when not training. All training commands that are accomplished get the word "YES" to signify to the dog that he/she is on the right track.


----------



## susan tuck

As for the article, while I applaud the authors' effort, I'm afraid her explanation is understandable only to those of us who already know what she is talking about. To test it out, I'm going to ask my bf to read it tomorrow after work & then will give him a pop quiz. After that he will be rewarded or punished, depending on his grade. :twisted: 

I know one thing. I know that when it comes to schutzhund, I never believed the reward/no compulsion sect. I always nodded politely, & moved on. That was until I read you, Bob. Yes, that was the day I realized I was a bigot. :x Seriously, I think there are so many factors (the dog, the skill of the trainer/handler). Sometimes it takes a better trainer to train withOUT force. I do admire Bob (he has only been training dogs since the dark ages), & am really curious to see what results he gets. Personally I use reward & compulsion.


----------



## Liz Monty

Hi Susan, I kept editing and adding stuff above, I'm too long winded in my replies, that's my vice, LOL. I do admit that I have become a compulsion trainer in most ways, but if you read the additions to what I wrote above, you will also see that I love them dearly and I save all my reward and affection for them when the training period is over. They always get the majority of the day playing with me and just being a dog. It's just that all that play is done in a safe or contained enviroment so I don't loose the lessons I have been teaching outside of that contained environment. When the dog is reliable, then boy oh boy do we play at times out in the bush or in a park.
I'm not all mean, I'm just me.


----------



## susan tuck

Liz, I wasn't trying to say I thought you were cruel. I'm pretty much the same. I just really surprised myself when I realized I had written off a method of training without a good reason! I think it's because I am sick of all those people who really make a lot of $$ selling stupid 1st time pet owners bad training methods, & those same hollywood trainers seem to encourage these people to treat their dogs like babies.

Now, here comes Bob with his radical no compulsion methods. Normally I would just glaze over & nod politely, but he knows what he is doing. I'm sure he would not have a problem using compulsion, my god he raised Terrors of all things.

Hey - I would be long winded if I didn't have ADD. Unfortunately I just wander off....


----------



## Greg Long

Bob has obviously found a way that works for him and his needs.Thats great! :lol: I really see alot of similarities in what Bob is saying and what others say,including myself.
I train alot like Liz but Im not going to say I always train the same way.It depends,some dogs may NEED a correction and others may hardly ever need one.I dont correct Shooter that much anymore but I have learned not to make him do stupid sh!! just for my own amusement.If I have an honest reason for him to do something he will do it willingly and enthusiastically.His "reward" is to do the work and to please me.He gets the most fired up for tracking and then secondly to leave scars on a stranger. :lol: 
If I would have to come up with a reward that I use it would have to be the bond.The bond is the reward.It is the most natural reward and to interject other aids for the dog to focus on distracts both dog and handler.of course it depends on the way these props are produced and given to the dog for the desired behavior.Rewarding with balls or tugs works, thats for sure.I wouldnt mind coming out and watching Bob in training one day.Maybe Ill change my mind. :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

susan tuck said:


> .....Sometimes it takes a better trainer to train withOUT force. I do admire Bob (he has only been training dogs since the dark ages), & am really curious to see what results he gets. Personally I use reward & compulsion.


I agree. Training without any correction is probably beyond my skill level..... at least at the moment. I'm fascinated and impressed.


----------



## Liz Monty

Well, I guess with this new puppy I brought home today, I will sure learn if my methods are going to work, LOL. She will soon let me know. I just love her. She's going to be a big one I think, the paws are HUGE. She has a nice hip and back line, not angled like the usual German Conformation/Schutzhund dogs. More in the middle of my old working lines. The Malinois type structure more of less is what I was used to.
She's very brave, that's all I can say about her. Very smart so far, and very determined to be with me, I love it. She only whimpered a little in our first half hour of the drive and then she slept the rest of the way. Right off the bat, good dog.
I am posting pics of her now. I don't know yet, but I see a difference in her personality than my East Germans/IPO type dogs. She is of high prey drive, but very level headed. She gives me the impression that her real calling is "Stop" dog (a dog who has the size and force to "Stop" a man with sheer power. Not the sport type at all it seems. We will see.

Sue, I didn't think your post was at all insulting my methods, don't worry, it was a good post.


----------



## Bob Scott

A few more thigs I'd like to add.
I think I really did start training in the dark ages :lol: . 
I've only been doing total maotivational training for 4+ yrs so I still have TONS of questions about it myself. 
It was comented about trying this with a tough adult dog. 
We have re-programed a couple of older dogs at the club. 
The first was a SchH III GSD with serious out issues. One of his early owners had actually broke one of his canine teeth trying to get him to out by punching him in the nose using some kind of hard leather glove/fist. E-collars, pinch, choke out only fired this dog up more. 
Within a month, his out was doing beautiful. Here's the rub. Under another TD/helper who reverted back to the heavy compulsion methods, the dog quickly reverted to no more outs.
The dog has since been retired because he started going around the sleeve to get the helper. This was after he left our club. 
Although I haven't seen as many older dog re-trained with Motivational, I suspect they may revert to their original foundation training under real stress. 
I think reverting to foundation training is common for any type of training, people or dogs. I was a kick boxer many moons ago. I saw a lot of good gym fighters turn back into street brawlers when the pressure was on in the ring. 
Another example is a SchH I Presa in the club. When she came to us (titled) her obedience was the typical hang dog look with a droopy tail. Correct, but nothing impressive. Within a month with no corrections, only motivational, her obedience is awesome. She now WANTS to work. Same with her bite work. tonight for the first time, she actually did focus heeling for a bite. You heel, you look in my eyes and you get to bite the helper. 
Yes I do now how to give compulsion! I traind with it for years. Some of my first training books were by Wm Koehler. Still have them!
When I first started going to obedience classes (1964) Compulsion was the ONLY way. 
I was compulsive to the point of permantely efn up the neck of a really good obedience competition dog in the 80s. 
Will I ever use compulsion again? If I need it, HE(( yes! I just haven't need it in the past 4 years of training.
Woody has made the trip to watch us train, although my dog was in the middle of his heartworm treatment and wasn't in attendance. 
Maren (Mrs Jones) has talked about comming over from Columbia Mo to watch. 
Anyone is welcome to come watch.


----------



## Greg Long

> "The dog has since been retired because he started going around the sleeve to get the helper. This was after he left our club."
> 
> 
> 
> I like this in a dog. :wink: I can see where it would cause problems though.
Click to expand...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Compulsion was the only way when I first knew dogs, too, except for the family dogs when I was a kid.

A few weeks ago when we discussed whether or not training in general had evolved for the better, that's what I meant when I said that videos from the first-wave-of-videos were so instructive about that evolution. To me, they ignore a whole gigantic group of efficient tools. 

And I ignored them too, in ignorance, for a long time.

Now it seems that more and more in the dog world are appreciating that dogs are individuals.

P.S. And I'm still fascinated and impressed by 100% motivational, no-correction training. It does seem that mastering this, or even seriously attempting to master it, could hone some of the most elusive character traits we have, aside from maybe showing us new possibilities in the canine repertoire. Not sure about my own abilities, though! :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

It's amazing to see a dog work through a problem instead of waiting to be corrected for doing it wrong.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> It's amazing to see a dog work through a problem instead of waiting to be corrected for doing it wrong.


Yes. 8)


----------



## Andres Martin

Connie's question is very interesting.
...at least to me :lol: :lol: 

While I don't use food and tugs with adult dogs, in the interest of orderly behavior (in other words, keeping my dog "polite" while I carry his food dish) I always sit, down or stand my dog before "releasing" him to eat.

Regarding the article, I find it anthropomorphic in excess. It describes OC, with the exception of Positive Punishment.

At the end of the day, even if I don't use food or tugs, I'm still within the realm of OC with praise, absence of praise, encouragement (Reward Markers), verbal or physical correction (Positive Punishment), discouragement (NRM), etc.

The only significant difference between those "more typical, tangible rewards" vs. "the bond" (both IMO are OC) is that the meaning of "primary" changes at a much more basic level.

Whew!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> ........The only significant difference between those "more typical, tangible rewards" vs. "the bond" (both IMO are OC) is that the meaning of "primary" changes at a much more basic level.
> 
> Whew!


Ya had me until that sentence!  

Can I have clarification of "primary" here? Thanks!


----------



## Andres Martin

Typical primary: sex, food.

Not so typical primary: bond, pack, shelter, safety.

As for the latter, you don't see Cape dogs questioning leadership; nor do you see them NOT doing what they're supposed to do. "Somehow" they understand. Harness THAT in your pet, and you've got a new ballgame in your hands.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> Typical primary: sex, food.
> 
> Not so typical primary: bond, pack, shelter, safety......


Gotcha.


----------



## Bob Scott

Andres Martin said:


> Typical primary: sex, food.
> 
> Not so typical primary: bond, pack, shelter, safety.
> 
> As for the latter, you don't see Cape dogs questioning leadership; nor do you see them NOT doing what they're supposed to do. "Somehow" they understand. Harness THAT in your pet, and you've got a new ballgame in your hands.


Good points, but the Cape dogs will question/challenge leadership when they see weakness. That's just nature doing its job.
The major difference with the Cape dogs and a human leading the pack is different in that the Cape dog earns leadership. Humans often put themselves in a pack and don't have a clue about leadership.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> ........Good points, but the Cape dogs will question/challenge leadership when they see weakness. That's just nature doing its job. .... the Cape dogs and a human leading the pack is different in that the Cape dog earns leadership. Humans often put themselves in a pack and don't have a clue about leadership.


Then their leadership is questioned/challenged too. Nature doing its job! :wink: 

There was a show on the Cape dog near here this year. I learned (and was surprised!) that they are the most highly endangered mammal on the African continent. At least that's what the Painted Dog Research Project says.


----------



## Bob Scott

I've also seen that. Rabies has taken a big toll on them.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> I've also seen that. Rabies has taken a big toll on them.


Also a lot of killing by humans, like the timber wolf.


----------



## Bob Scott

The ultimate predator!


----------



## Andres Martin

Leadership? Therein lies the entire set of keys.

Food for thought:

Motivational dog training can be performed BETTER by a machine than by a person. (One particular example is the clicker: exact tonality every time.)

Leadership cannot be exercised by a machine.

Motivational training is not about leadership.

Please tear that syllogism apart...if you can.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> Leadership? Therein lies the entire set of keys.
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> Motivational dog training can be performed BETTER by a machine than by a person. (One particular example is the clicker: exact tonality every time.)
> 
> Leadership cannot be exercised by a machine.
> 
> Motivational training is not about leadership.
> 
> Please tear that syllogism apart...if you can.


That's weak, structurally, independent of the actual application to dogs. Did you take logic at your prestigious American university? This has the form of a syllogism, just not the actual...proof that would make it correct.
You've inserted a lot of problematic stuff here. 

Most glaringly, you've inserted this non-sequitur that "a machine does motivational training better than a human." Your example is a clicker. A clicker, in and of itself, does not do motivational training. It must be actuated to do it by a human. 

So the correct way to say that would be (though still potentially incorrect/irrelevant) would be:

1. Motivational dog training can be performed better by a human using a clicker than a human not using a clicker (A>B)

Rebuild your syllogism and I can help you out with making sure it's an actual valid argument. You're still going to have problems with your second proposition, it's also loaded.

Don't worry, Andres, I don't know jack about dogs but I did lots of good book learnin' at my backwoods school. My business is helping yours.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> Leadership? Therein lies the entire set of keys.
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> Motivational dog training can be performed BETTER by a machine than by a person. (One particular example is the clicker: exact tonality every time.)
> 
> Leadership cannot be exercised by a machine.
> 
> Motivational training is not about leadership.
> 
> Please tear that syllogism apart...if you can.


Well, I guess you're saying that *markers* (as opposed to training) can be dispensed better by a machine, and yes; who can dispute that a machine is more precise? I'm not sure what the qualifier "motivational" does in the statement. 

I think no training is really about leadership. Leadership is about leadership. But a trainer with leadership qualities is way ahead of the game. 

QUOTE: At the end of the day, even if I don't use food or tugs, I'm still within the realm of OC with praise, absence of praise, encouragement (Reward Markers), verbal or physical correction (Positive Punishment), discouragement (NRM), etc. END

Praise here: not an event marker, right? Praise as a reward?


Syllogism:
Logic. A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion; for example, All humans are mortal, the major premise, I am a human, the minor premise, therefore, I am mortal, the conclusion.
Reasoning from the general to the specific; deduction.
A subtle or specious piece of reasoning

Editing to say that training and leadership can exist separately. Do you mean that all good training, or all the best training, is done by trainers with great leadership ability? That goes without saying, right?

Editing also to emphasize that markers aren't training. :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Dang, Woody, it's "book l'arnin' " --- I tell you and tell you........


----------



## Andres Martin

Woody...
:lol: :lol: :lol: 
You'll never see the forest for the trees.

Corrected syllogism:

Motivational dog training can be performed BETTER by a machine than by a person.

Leadership cannot be exercised by a machine. 

Motivational training is not about leadership.



> Dang, Woody, it's "book l'arnin' "


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


> No training is about leadership.


ALL training should be about leadership.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I disagree.

Training can be performed without leadership.

Only if the trainer has leadership is the training about leadership (and only if the trainer has leadership can the training be excellent, IME).

But there seem to be a lot of trees in this forest.

QUOTE: Motivational training is not about leadership. END

then 

QUOTE: ALL training is about leadership. END

QUOTE: At the end of the day, even if I don't use food or tugs, I'm still within the realm of OC with praise, absence of praise, encouragement (Reward Markers), verbal or physical correction (Positive Punishment), discouragement (NRM), etc. ....... The only significant difference between those "more typical, tangible rewards" vs. "the bond" (both IMO are OC) is that the meaning of "primary" changes at a much more basic level. END


You lost me. I'm still back on markers actually being "motivational training." Markers aren't training, IMHO, any more than corrections or rewards or commands ..........


----------



## Andres Martin

I re-wrote...because you are correct: "ALL training SHOULD BE about leadership."

Motivational training is about conditioning - via shaping - a dog to perform behaviors in anticipation of self gratification.

"At the end of the day...etc." means that many old timers did OC, heavily skewed to the cumpulsion side. Not me. I wrote "I" simply to illustrate.

Bob asked for comment and I did. There is NO question in my mind that any nincompoop can get a dog to respond (even if it's sloppy) to typical primary rewards. Motivational "shaping" is fast, easy, and easily transferrable. High level response and precision doing "motivational" takes very good timing, very good dog-reading, and experience...but I don't think it's about leadership. It's simply CONDITIONING...based on what THE DOG's ANTICIPATES AS THE MOST PROBABLE OUTCOME.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> Woody...
> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> You'll never see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Corrected syllogism:
> 
> Motivational dog training can be performed BETTER by a machine than by a person.
> 
> Leadership cannot be exercised by a machine.
> 
> Motivational training is not about leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang, Woody, it's "book l'arnin' "
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> No training is about leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL training should be about leadership.
Click to expand...

Eh. Hard to see the metaphorical forest, Andres, when it's obscured by the metaphorical kudzu of emoticons and bad rhetoric.

The thread kind of bugs me now in general: I challenge anyone here to give me an example of their training methods and how they are not some form of bribes, lures, or rewards. Every interaction between your dog and your brain has a medium. Your voice, your gestures, what you provide physically, what posture you are in, what food you use, what tugs/balls you use, what compulsive methods you use. Put your brain in a jar, place that jar in a room, train your dog. My guess is that you will have a hard time doing it before your dog turns into a raw food proponent. It's nonsense to me. All training methods I have ever heard any of you refer all refer to use some type of apparatus to generate a response from your animal. I think the motivational folks have been put in a Karl Rove-ish box...motivators, just because you're a liberal does not mean you want the terrorists to win.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> I re-wrote...because you are correct: "ALL training SHOULD BE about leadership."
> 
> ........ There is NO question in my mind that any nincompoop can get a dog to respond (even if it's sloppy) to typical primary rewards. Motivational "shaping" is fast, easy, and easily transferrable. High level response and precision doing "motivational" takes very good timing, very good dog-reading, and experience...but I don't think it's about leadership. It's simply CONDITIONING...based on what THE DOG's ANTICIPATES AS THE MOST PROBABLE OUTCOME.


Ditto for all-compulsion training, right? 

Leadership (to me) is an intangible in a human that can generate in a dog the urge to join and follow that human. No need to define leadership for this discussion, beyond the inherent ability to guide and lead, right?

A human who is a leader; a dog who is drawn to following that human. A nice base for training!

Conditioning, rewards, compulsion, correction, markers........... these are just components of training, right?

So I guess I don't really follow your line of reasoning completely.


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> The thread kind of bugs me now in general: I challenge anyone here to give me an example of their training methods and how they are not some form of bribes, lures, or rewards. Every interaction between your dog and your brain has a medium. Your voice, your gestures, what you provide physically, what posture you are in, what food you use, what tugs/balls you use, what compulsive methods you use. Put your brain in a jar, place that jar in a room, train your dog. My guess is that you will have a hard time doing it before your dog turns into a raw food proponent. It's nonsense to me. All training methods I have ever heard any of you refer all refer to use some type of apparatus to generate a response from your animal. I think the motivational folks have been put in a Karl Rove-ish box...motivators, just because you're a liberal does not mean you want the terrorists to win.


i think you know more about dog training than you give yourself credit for... :wink:


----------



## Bob Scott

Although I don't have the linguistic talents of Andres, Connie and Woody, (Alphabetical order) I'Ve never looked at motivational training as mechanical. 
If that were so, anyone could take my dog and go through his routine a long as they had the correct motivator (toy/treat). Not so! There are 1-2 people at my club that could probably put him through his paces. There are others that he would totally ignore no matter what they waved in front of him. 
When I have 8-10 neighbor kids in my front yard, playing fetch with my dog, why does he look to me if he can retrieve it? If it were mechanical, why would he not bring it back to the munchkin machine that threw the toy instead of bringing it to me? 
Why is it less mechanical when the dog is corrected for making a mistake in training as opposed to a dog that is allowed to make the mistake, then has to think through the problem and is given the choice to obey? Is the dog then obeying because it benifits, or is it obeying because it fears correction?
Is work performance better with fear of correction or will the dog perform better if it WANTS to perform? 
Both work!
No doubt a machine could be built that could "train" a dog to follow it because it had a reward in it's "hand". I also have no doubt a machine could be built that holds the leash and corrects the dog when the dog gets out of position. 
THAT'S mechanical! Neither method is leadership!
Wether you condition your dog to seek reward, or wether you condition your dog to avoid correction, BOTH are a form of conditioning and BOTH work. 
It's all about choices in training! 
BTW Andres, 
Thank you for bringing up another side of the coin. That's what I was hoping for when I made the post.


----------



## Bob Scott

I might add that not all "nimcompoops" have the ability tor train motivationally, just as not all have the ability to train with compulsion. Both still require correct timming to get the proper response. :wink:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quoteosted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I started to read it, and realized that this is the kind of crap that makes newbies think they have found heaven, then eventually drop off from confusion. 

It falls in line with the adds in Dog World magazine with the no food, no collars, no leashes, no watches, while blindfolded crap that the mystical Brittany and her 300 pound GSD, Dobe, and Rott all learned apparently from instructional video. 

How dare you post crap like this. 


So it took three pages to realize what I said right away. You may now bow down to my obvious superiority. HA HA


----------



## Bob Scott

Jeff, where ya been? Ya bailed way to easy on this one. I was expecting way more outta ya!  :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> Jeff, where ya been? Ya bailed way to easy on this one. I was expecting way more outta ya!  :wink:


But thanks for the Friday out-loud laugh! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> Although I don't have the linguistic talents of Andres, Connie and Woody, (Alphabetical order) I'Ve never looked at motivational training as mechanical.
> If that were so, anyone could take my dog and go through his routine a long as they had the correct motivator (toy/treat). Not so! There are 1-2 people at my club that could probably put him through his paces. There are others that he would totally ignore no matter what they waved in front of him.
> When I have 8-10 neighbor kids in my front yard, playing fetch with my dog, why does he look to me if he can retrieve it? If it were mechanical, why would he not bring it back to the munchkin machine that threw the toy instead of bringing it to me?
> Why is it less mechanical when the dog is corrected for making a mistake in training as opposed to a dog that is allowed to make the mistake, then has to think through the problem and is given the choice to obey? Is the dog then obeying because it benifits, or is it obeying because it fears correction?
> Is work performance better with fear of correction or will the dog perform better if it WANTS to perform?
> Both work!
> No doubt a machine could be built that could "train" a dog to follow it because it had a reward in it's "hand". I also have no doubt a machine could be built that holds the leash and corrects the dog when the dog gets out of position.
> THAT'S mechanical! Neither method is leadership!
> Wether you condition your dog to seek reward, or wether you condition your dog to avoid correction, BOTH are a form of conditioning and BOTH work.
> It's all about choices in training!
> BTW Andres,
> Thank you for bringing up another side of the coin. That's what I was hoping for when I made the post.


Nice post. "Linguistic talents," indeed!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

*** MOD EDIT ****


[-X [-X 

(but I am laughing)


----------



## Andres Martin

> I challenge anyone here to give me an example of their training methods and how they are not some form of bribes, lures, or rewards.


I train pups to do "bitework" by submitting the decoy myself.

Again...my point simply is that bond, pack, shelter and safety are much harder to use as "motivators" in that they are "long term" motivators; not immediate. They sure are interesting though.

Hey Woody...if something as silly as emoticons makes you lose your capacity to view and understand...I won't use them any more. I wouldn't want to affect you in any way.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> train pups to do "bitework" by submitting the decoy myself.


That's a lure. Present fun activity/payoff that the pup can do if it follows the program.



> Again...my point simply is that bond, pack, shelter and safety are much harder to use as "motivators" in that they are "long term" motivators; not immediate. They sure are interesting though.


Offering bond, pack, shelter and safety are motivational things, nonetheless. 



> Hey Woody...if something as silly as emoticons makes you lose your capacity to view and understand...I won't use them any more. I wouldn't want to affect you in any way.


You don't. I figured you went to emoticons when you realized the gravity of your mistake. And I figured you were drunk yesterday when you did your Philosophy 101 challenge to the world (seriously).

_Edited to drop the royal "we."_


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres,

Submitting TO the decoy?

Not teasing you for usage -- trying to get clarification. :wink:


----------



## Andres Martin

Connie...submitting the decoy, as in, "I take the decoy down." I only submit to my wife. :wink: 
Woody...there's not much fun in a fight, is there? Pup's don't see fights as fun. It's quite serious.


> Offering bond, pack, shelter and safety are motivational things, nonetheless.


These things aren't offered in association with ONE specific behavior, nor are they exchanged. They are underlying and hardwired.

I don't want to get off topic. Motivational, Compulsion, Praise, etc. are all OC...and IMO, OC works, fast. It's about the dog...not the handler. While it's not instantaneous to be able to transfer an OC dog to another handler, it's far more easy than transferring a dog that has been "trained" without typical primary rewards/punishment. Thus, OC is far more workable, easier to teach to handlers and dogs, cheaper, a common language.

I do a BUNCH of OC. It works super well. I can get dogs to respond to cues with a high level of predictability. I'm not commenting on whether it works or not. My point is there are alternatives and complements that the article did not consider.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> Connie...submitting the decoy, as in, "I take the decoy down." I only submit to my wife. :wink: .


OK, then I will forget about asking for video of you on the sleeve. :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> ......OC is far more workable, easier to teach to handlers and dogs, cheaper, a common language. ......... I do a BUNCH of OC. It works super well. I can get dogs to respond to cues with a high level of predictability. I'm not commenting on whether it works or not. My point is there are alternatives and complements that the article did not consider.


I get all this.

One place I wander off is in my understanding of leadership and its relationship to training.

Markers are not training; rewards are not; correctiions are not. To me it sounds funny to say that since machines can do a better job at dispensing markers, but cannot be leaders, then motivational training isn't about leadership. I would have to believe that markers equalled motivational training to be able to agree with that conclusion.

Leadership, I believe, is a terrific quality that can be the basis of a human-dog relationship, and that is the very best basis. Again, a great base for training (of whatever "brand") ---- but they are two different, although complentary, things. I can imagine a good leader who is not a good dog trainer. And I can also see that a trainer who trains with motivation, or example, or compulsion, or whatever, will get better results if s/he is a leader.

Motivation is a type of tool, and the article was about three tools and their similarities and differences (I think). I don't think it "did not consider" other tools as much as it "wasn't about" other tools.

P.S. I agree with Bob that QUOTE: not all "nimcompoops" have the ability to train motivationally, just as not all have the ability to train with compulsion. END

JMO.


----------



## Andres Martin

Only suits...no sleeves...and of the "birthday" kind. Only "pure motivational" for me... (here goes the emoticon I abstain from using out of pity for Woody).


----------



## Andres Martin

Connie...I wrote the following:


> any nincompoop can get a dog to respond (even if it's sloppy) to typical primary rewards.


 There's a big difference between "respond" and being reliably predictable (trained).
In fact, my next sentence was:


> High level response and precision doing "motivational" takes very good timing, very good dog-reading, and experience


 I'm used to CMA...(emoticon).


----------



## Connie Sutherland

CMA like CYA? (emoticon)

I can abstain if you can. :wink: 

Oops.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: That's a lure. Present fun activity/payoff that the pup can do if it follows the program. END



Andres Martin said:


> ...there's not much fun in a fight, is there? Pup's don't see fights as fun. .....


You don't subscribe to the idea of the bite as a reward?

I'm asking -- this is not rhetorical.


----------



## Andres Martin

If you bin a'prey developin', yup.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Oh, and backing up a way.............

Do others instruct their dogs to sit (or down, or whatever) while food is being prepared or set down just to keep the dogs from being in the way?

Or is it more common that the dogs must do something to "earn" the food?

Is it a given? Does the work all day just lead to the food, or is there a task that results in a meal?

I'm curious. I had not thought much about this before this thread; I had just always required that some command be followed before food was given.


----------



## ann schnerre

FWIW (very timidly adding my 0.02 worth to this high-brow discussion):
connie, i require my dogs to sit before feeding for 2 reasons: goodmanners, and to get them out of the way (the dobe does this cool 2' vertical/backwards/almost in your face jump all the from the dog food supply to his bowl). he HAS to sit until released (as does sadie, but not brix, as he's fed in his crate).

i wonder if, in some way, this discussion has come down to semantics? it seems to me that the best course in dog-training is kind of middle-of-the-road, with motivational work (NILIF) combined with compulsion when needed, and completely based upon the dog's temperment/nerves.

but what do i know?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

ann freier said:


> ..... i require my dogs to sit before feeding for 2 reasons: goodmanners, and to get them out of the way (the dobe does this cool 2' vertical/backwards/almost in your face jump all the from the dog food supply to his bowl). he HAS to sit until released (as does sadie, but not brix, as he's fed in his crate).
> 
> i wonder if, in some way, this discussion has come down to semantics? it seems to me that the best course in dog-training is kind of middle-of-the-road, with motivational work (NILIF) combined with compulsion when needed, and completely based upon the dog's temperment/nerves. ....


Well, that's three reasons, then, right? Good manners, get them out of the way, and NILIF.

That was really the gist of my question, and I think you're answering that yes, you do require something from the dog before food is granted. Or am I reading wrong?

About Brix, fed in his crate. Does he have to do something to get his dish? Or (and this is my question) is his dinner excluded from NILIF?

Yes, there's a big dose of semantics here, I think, Ann. But it's interesting, isn't it?


----------



## ann schnerre

it's WAY interesting!

and yes, you're reading it right, i do require *something* for food. brix's *something* is bailing into his crate---he's the first (but not last) crate-trained dog i've ever had. 

a crate is god's gift to ppl that own more than 2 dogs, ppl that are house-training a pup, ppl that LIKE their home furnishings, ppl that own a higher-drive dog, etc., etc., etc....

anyway, b/c i'm such a beginner at this motivational training (yes, i confess, i thought bill koehler made a lot of sense a few years ago--still does, as far as that goes, in SOME instances, w/SOME dogs), i don't feel that i can contribute much to the discussion, except that my particular pup is progressing very well using those methods. 

as far as i can tell.....


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

I use feeding time as a way to get them to kennel up. I find it the easiest way to teach pups to go to thier kennel when told. I have a couple I make sit just so I can get the bowl down without wearing the dish. When we are working they are usually on a picquet line so they get fed without having to do anything for it. When it comes to training I couldn't tell you what method I use as it depends on what I am am trying to train, so I will just say whatever gets the job done with the least amount of effort and kerfuffle in that situation.


----------



## Tim Martens

ann freier said:


> it seems to me that the best course in dog-training is kind of middle-of-the-road, with motivational work (NILIF) combined with compulsion when needed, and completely based upon the dog's temperment/nerves.
> 
> but what do i know?


this is the way my trainer taught me. i don't know what NILIF is, but the motivation/compulsion, i.e. you do it this way you get your treat, ball, praise if you do it wrong you get a correction method has worked for him for over 30 years and has generally worked with my 3 dogs....


----------



## Bob Scott

My three each have their place to eat. Pete by the kitchen sink. Ursa in her crate in the kitchen. Thunder on the deck. Nobody is fed until they are in their place. 
When the food pans start banging, each dog runs to their place.


----------



## Bob Scott

Tim, NILIF = Nothing In Life Is Free!


----------



## ann schnerre

tim, i'm still learning NILIF, but it's quite amazing to me how well it works. basically, as i understand it,the dog doesn't get to go outside, eat, play, doesn't get so much as a pat on the head, unless s/he provides an acceptable behavior. for me and mine, it's usually a sit or platz, or drop the ball.

it's still not a habit for me, but i'm working on getting myself trained!  it has resulted in a pup with very nice manners without much formal OB training as of yet.

the reason that i don't discount compulsion as an option is b/c the best dog i ever had in my life (a GSD/Rott), a hard dominant bitch, i think i spent the first 3 yrs of her life getting her attention by popping her in the head. it never had the slightest effect on her nerves/courage--mostly she'd look at me like "oh--ok". however, she's been the ONLY dog i've ever had that that would work on; every other one has been much more trainable with food/praise rewards and little or no compulsion.

it's always an adventure, i love learning/trying new methods in training


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

> (from Bob Scott) Maren (Mrs Jones) has talked about comming over from Columbia Mo to watch.
> Anyone is welcome to come watch.


Yeah, yeah, yeah! :lol: Now that I got my blankety blank vet school application in, I'll have a bit more time for such adventures. I really need to get back to training! Driving both me and the dog nuts.


----------



## Liz Monty

New pup, 12 weeks old. Huge prey and play drive. Nerves of steel apparantly (she doesn't even wink an eye at bangs, flushing toilets. tv's, heavy traffic, sirens, garbage bags being opened by fanning them, door bells, NOTHING. Tonight, I was sitting on the floor behind her and she was chewing her bone. I slapped my hands really loud, she didn't notice, I slapped them twice even louder, she turned slowly to see if there was anything of interest for her. Nothing. But if I try and sneak out of the room when she is sleeping , she jumps right up. So her hearing is just fine.
She's civil, but loving. What training I've used the last 5 days:
NO crate for two days, laid out papers at back door and I slept in the living room with her. When she looked like she had to go pee, I kept bringing her to the papers, and then to the outside. Finally she couldn't hold it and decided to choose the paper. I told her GOOD Girl. Over the days, I repeated this outdoor or indoor paper choice for her. Very cold here too, so the indoor outdoor is not fun,,lol. Now she has went a great number of times outdoors and I have praised her with the same enthusiasm as indoors. Why, because I would rather her go pee on a mat at the backdoor in an emergency than go anywhere in the rest of the house. I do this on purpose with the puppies. When I crated her I layed down at the crate like usual, but this dog did flips over and over to get out. Never saw that before. Not fearful flips, but calculated attempts to get through the roof. Not the right method with this pup. So she was released after a little bit. Waited until today to crate again. First Took her to the country and we hiked. When she came home tired and fell asleep I woke her up and put her in the crate, she was so tired, she accepted it with little whining and slept in there for two hours until I took her out. I took her out before she woke up. Later, I put her back in again and she was OK. You see in this case Compulsion would have never worked in my favour. I would have ruined the bond and trust she was able to give me by waitng until I could crate her when she did not feel threatened by it.
She also cannot be trained by food reward, because she is too civil already. So giving her food would backfire. She bit my leg today when she wanted me to move out of her way while she was playing with her squeeky toy. She has a hard little bite. She got a quick low toned "OUCH" and she backed off. and knew what she did. She won't do it ever again. I can tell by her behaviour. This is just a dog who needs to hear the words in the correct tone of voice to learn, no lures and no treats, or she would become a monster, as I have already nicknamed her. I wish I had a video camera, she's a wild one. lol (But still levelheaded wild one} She drops her bone on the floor and then backs away and barks and growls and attacks it and does it over and over. She is so prey driven. The first time she left her squeeky outside, I said "go get your squeeky" and she did. This behaviour has been constant over the last 24 hours. She knows go lay down, she knows take a nap, she knows quiet, she knows here, she knows car. I walked past our car at the parking lot and she stopped and looked back at the right car to show me. I couldn't believe it. None of this was trained, she is just picking up so quickly on just words and somehow getting their meaning and being so trainable. And NO, NO ONE ELSE CAN BUY HER, she's all mine. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: mine, mine, mine,


----------



## Lyn Chen

Liz, I'm wondering what you mean by a civil dog, since your pup is only 12 weeks old.


----------



## Bob Scott

Lynn you beat me to the question. A civil dog is one that will seriously bite for real with no orientation on equptment. 
A 12 week old pup that doesn't bite anything/everything near it's mouth is sleeping.


----------



## susan tuck

Easy Liz, calm down, it's just a 12 week old puppy! :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

susan tuck said:


> Easy Liz, calm down......!


I have heard that a 12-week-old puppy can be pretty exciting! :wink:


----------



## susan tuck

12 week old puppies are cute (for sure) but civil & manstoppers (come on), give the pup a chance to just be cute for while! All puppies are crapshoots, that is part of the charm. If I were you I would just enjoy the puppy phase for now.


----------



## Liz Monty

Hey, you guys take me too seriuosly :lol: :lol: :lol: 
I just mean the puppy is showing distinct character traits of what she will become later on. I get excited by cute active pups of course, I think we all do. But I love seeing their character come out in little ways even at 12 weeks of age. I'm an evaluator by nature, I always have to analyze everything, my bad, but I still like doing it. 
Does she bite at every little thing when she is awake - nope, only the things that interest her prey drive. I tried a shirt tonight and nothing, I tried her squeeky and she goes into prey (it makes noise and she can toss it like a cat tosses a mouse). She doesn't go after moving feet, but she goes after moving hands on the ground. She doesn't go after the cat when the cat is walking, but she goes after her when the cat runs. She never has tried to nip or bite the cat. Licks my face all the time. Does not bite my hands if I hold them over her food, but tries to nose under and around the fingers to get to it. But - this is important, a civil dog shows up in a 12 week old puppy who has no fear imprinted in them. It shows up in a couple of ways - With all the nice things they do and all the bonding they show, they will at one time or another just simply bite because you (the person) are in their way of something. Could be the toy they where tossing around, could be the dog they wanted to go play with and you held them back. But they would never bite you the owner in a day to day play manner. This puppy does not mouth at all, never, not even when she chases my hands on the floor, she just uses her paws to catch them. No clothing tugs, no trying to get my food even if I sit on the floor with a plate of something really good. She is totally well behaved in so many ways. That is why I can say she is probably going to be a civil dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

The puppy doesn't mouth at all?

I didn't even know that was an option! :lol:


----------



## Liz Monty

Connie, honest to god, she does not mouth. She's like a dream. Every other puppy mouthed, I used to have scratches from little baby teeth up and down my arms all the time. She doesn't, it like she's an adult and a puppy at the same time.
She does have prey and play drive galore, but she is so sensible about it.
And I confess, I have already used toys with her to play.


----------



## Liz Monty

She does have major puppy spins too, and involves her toys and bones in them.
She also does not grab the leash and tug on it like the others did (really irritating).


----------



## Connie Sutherland

She sounds and looks great!


OK, it took me some reading to find what the heck this thread was about, but TA DA! So, Liz, you are saying that rewards and compulsion would both backfire with this pup so far, and that, so far, certain tones of voice are most effective?

And -- anyone else have any comments about the article that was posted for discussion? (Reminder: rewards, lures, and bribes.) :lol:


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

I think people get bogged down by the terminology - as soon as someone says "reward" everyone thinks food or toy. The dog picks the motivator, really, and sometimes just being singled out from a bunch of other dogs for individual attention can be a potent reward, I think. I use this alot (as it is unwieldy using food as a reward for stuff out in the dogyard) and it tells you alot about the dogs, too - like how a certain dog responds, are they a "pleaser" or a "teaser" and who has a better attention span and who is a little brighter or denser at picking up new stuff. I use vocal praise alot because as sled dog they are always working at some distance away from you - even if they are connected to the gangline- so your voice has to have some weight and meaning to it from the dogs perspective, so start early. I do use food for teaching the standard obedience stuff as puppies - sits, downs, stays and the really important shake hands, sit pretty and high-five :lol: For sled dogs the motivator is they want to go ahead and get down the trail - so you let them go ahead when they comply with what you have asked them.
This is just what I do and probably no-one gives a rat's behind but oh well


----------



## Liz Monty

sorry Connie, I had to go play with the pup for a while. If I start to use food as a reward I am afraid that she will become too possessive about it. I made that mistake with two other dogs, both females that where more on the civil side. When my son was younger, one female who adored him, began to challenge him when he entered a room. She was so used to getting treat rewards that she began to think that others present may get a reward that she should have gotten. In other words, she became possessive in what ever area she was in when I was present. It began with food reward and feeding of human food. So I don't do that if a pup is showing any signs of being strong willed or confident. If they are already confident, then I don't want food to direct them to possessiveness. Bella does not ask for any of our food, and I have never ever seen a puppy who did not jump up and try for human food before. She has a great start and I don't want to change it.


----------



## Bob Scott

Food treats OR ANY other type of reward have nothing to do with dominance, possessivness, aggression. In fact, feeding by hand is one of the starts to correcting dominance problems. 
Those problems are controlled with leadership.
Lynn, your a motivational trainer and just didn't know it!  :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Liz Monty said:


> ....When my son was younger, one female who adored him, began to challenge him when he entered a room. She was so used to getting treat rewards that she began to think that others present may get a reward that she should have gotten. In other words, she became possessive in what ever area she was in when I was present. It began with food reward and feeding of human food. .....


Well, that sounds like a dominance issue.

"Feeding of human food" ......... food is food. JMO! :wink:


----------



## Liz Monty

Yes, exactly, dominance problem begins and ends with food.
the dominance over my son or other people entering our world (the dog's and mine) was brought on by food. On the other hand, a dominant or very aggressive/possessive dog can gain trust and respect from a handler that will use food - hand given to the dog. But generally it only works for the handler, the one feeding the dog. That's why I don't use the food, I don't want the dog to just treat me with respect, I want her to treat others with the same respect and gentleness. You can't deny that if you have a very aggressive dog, maybe civil and you gradually build it's trust and your dominance by feeding it by hand or withholding it's food until you feed it, that same dog will learn to respect you, but it won't change the dog's reaction to a different person approaching.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Liz Monty said:


> Yes, exactly, dominance problem begins and ends with food.


Huh?


----------



## Bob Scott

The things I see wrong with this are a couple. 
For one, if you want a dog to be gentle and respectful with everyone, then possibly you should choose another dog.

OR! Depending on your son's age, why not work with him AND the dog.

My grandkids spend lots of time at my house and I've spent a lot of time teaching them and my dogs who's in charge. 
Although my dogs love my grandkids.....now, I still controll their situation. 
Leadership is the key!


----------



## Liz Monty

:lol: :lol: I think I'm driving poor Connie nuts, I don't mean to. I'm trying to explain, but the words just don't come out right, lol.
Not all dominance comes from food or is eased by food. I just am referring to the type of dominance that is food related. There are other reasons for domiance. I was only talking about the food reasoning. I have had other dominance issues come up and they where not food related.


----------



## Lyn Chen

I think the only factor that really directly affects dominance is the actual owner and relationship with the dog. Everything else is a medium that 'triggers' that dominance.


----------



## Bob Scott

Lyn Chen said:


> I think the only factor that really directly affects dominance is the actual owner and relationship with the dog. Everything else is a medium that 'triggers' that dominance.


Well said!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Liz Monty said:


> :lol: :lol: ....Not all dominance comes from food or is eased by food. I just am referring to the type of dominance that is food related. There are other reasons for domiance. I was only talking about the food reasoning. I have had other dominance issues come up and they where not food related.


Dominance and aggression....... different words.

Connected, yes, but not really interchangeable. :wink: 

If you use the word "aggression" for every place here where it says "dominance" ..... then I get it.


----------



## Liz Monty

Bob. of course your right. I always controlled the situation when around people or kids. The thing I'm saying is that I would prefer the dog not to have an issue about food that I have to worry about. Around kids and people I will and have always been on top of what is going on. I already learned a long time ago how dangerous it can be to not be on top of scenarios and situations. But why add a possible problem to the long list of problems that can arise with any dog and kids/strangers. Even a dog who is always gentle with kids could one day bite them in the face with no warning at all. It's not important what type of dog you choose, but how familiar you are with their behaviour and how they are trained. A good protective dog can still be good with kids. But the owner should always be there to maintain safety just incase
Say for instance I train the puppy to accept food rewards, then a child is visiting and they have food in their hand, if the dog is not 100% controlled and the child comes too close, that playful hand treated dog may take the child's food and maybe injure a finger. It's already a hard enough job to get close to 100% obedience, but I still don't want to rely on this with a child and food.
The recent - since about ten years ago, method of obedience training the Family Dog, is to teach the children to feed the dog too, so that food aggression does not occur. But there is always going to be a dominance level in each family. Children are likely to be lower on the list and the dog cannot be trusted to not show aggression to them around food no matter how many obedience classes the children attended and hand fed their family dogs treats. It is often said that the child should fill the dog dish and place it down for the dog, etc. etc. In some dogs that can work great, but not all of them will care who fed them. We had a black lab as children and he challenged very aggressively anyone who approached his dish once he was given it. We all fed him his meals and we all gave him treats and parts of our food. But I was the only member of the house who could go over, kneel down and remove his dish while he was eating. I am the youngest member of the family. I played with him the most and took him on hikes and stuff. so he bonded with me more and gave me more respect.


----------



## Liz Monty

Connie, yep, aggression would be better suited.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

A dog who bites a child to get the food in the child's hand does not do it because the dog has been trained with food. The dog does it because the dog is not under control, or not trained.

QUOTE: if the dog is not 100% controlled and the child comes too close, that playful hand treated dog may take the child's food and maybe injure a finger. END

The point there is "not controlled."


----------



## Bob Scott

When children are visiting here that the dogs are unfamiliar with, the dogs are not exposed to that child unless they have a good "doggy" background. Even then, if the are to small to have the dog sense, the dog stays kenneled/crated/outside. 
Also, taking food frome ones had can and should be taught to be done gently. I wont tollerate a dog the snatches food from anyone without permission, much less in a rough manner. 
I'm not trying to come down on you for what your saying, but some of it just doesn't connect with me as sound practices with dogs and kids/family.


----------



## Liz Monty

Yes, that is what I was replying to Bob about. The control needed over the dog and different scenarios including food. I feel that if I just don't add food given by hand, then the dog will not learn to take food from another's hand. Of course I would have to teach the dog not to try and steal a child's food. I don't expect the dog to just know this instinctively. But I feel it makes the control easier to get the dog more likely to accept that control if I myself don't even hand feed treats.
I hand feed her kibble, and I run my fingers in it as she eats, and I would definately give her royal heck if she ever showed signs of guarding her food with my son or my cat or any other household guest that I invite in. But also, I would first be avoiding the situation to come up. If a child was visiting I would be not allowing them to approach a dog who is eating in the first place.


----------



## Lyn Chen

I second Bob and Connie...this won't be a food issue, it's a control issue. You can just as easily teach the dog that food only comes from you and only if you say so. I have a dog you can eat in front of even if he's been food-trained who won't whine, beg, or jump up to grab the food from you. Besides which, food is something most living things like...if a child has food in their hands and the dog hasn't been trained anyway, regardless if it was trained with food or not, it's probably going to be tempted.


----------



## Greg Long

Look what I miss when I leave for a few days. :roll: 

You ALL are thinking about it too hard.

Communicate to the dog what it is you want and what it is you dont want.Show interest in the work and learn from the dog.The desire of the handler to work WITH the dog is the key.
The goal should be to become a better handler and not so much to "train" the dog.Be clear in direction and correct when neccessary.

Im fairly certain I learned more about dogs by working them this weekend than you did discussing it. :wink:


----------



## Liz Monty

Oh, Greg, the word work together is the big one. That's why that black lab we had as kids loved me. I played and hiked and worked him in things no other family member did.
I have lots of work ahead of me with Bella. I'm going to put it in the training board and see what adivce is given.


----------

