|
Post by willow on Aug 27, 2006 8:55:54 GMT -5
Please explain how, as Nicki stated in another thread, "helping" a dog into the down position ruins your relationship with your dog?
You are not body slamming the dog to the ground or pushing on his back and forcing him into the down, although that is the impression PP trainers give by calling it a "forced down". You are simply showing the dog what " down" means by taking his front legs and moving them forward until he has to go down, and it doesn't matter if the dog is very submissive. The more submissive, the less time it takes, because a submissive dog, will down easily and isn't that the idea? ;D
As Nicki said, I have always used this method with my dogs. They normally learn in one session and it certainly has not ruined our relationship.
Tell me where pack leader wolves/wild dogs shower treats on another pack member when they want to teach them something?
It is just my opinion based on many years of working with dogs/people that it isn't using gentle "hands on" to teach a command that ruins a relationship with a dog. It is not clearly showing the dog what you want, and showering them with treats, which tells them they are the pack leader, not you.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Aug 27, 2006 16:30:31 GMT -5
Hi Willow, in my opinion 'forcing' a down (providing we are talking about the method you descibe being carried out gently) will work perfectly well for a majority of dogs and won't jeopardise your relationship.
However, there are some dogs who just hate being physically manipulated in training - and I have one. He has not been beaten (I don't think - although I got him at 9 months old), and is perfectly happy to be cuddled and touched all over, even by strangers, but is generally a very soft dog and interprets being physically manipulated at all during training as being told off or having failed. At this stage he panics and becomes confused then uncooperative. I am not able to 'place sit' him, or teach him to hold a dumbell by pressing his mouth together, and yet he is currently working better than any dog I have ever trained. He has forced me to think of 'hands off' ways to teach things, which has not been necessary with previous dogs or my other current dog.
I would in future choose to train any dog or puppy to sit or down via lure and reward in preference to placing them in a sit or down but that is just my current preference.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Aug 28, 2006 9:12:35 GMT -5
Hi Kaos,
Thank you for the response and I understand/agree with what you said, because there are some dogs that are so timid and insecure, that they fall apart/shut down if you so much as look at them, and this is where using different methods for different dogs comes in. This is what we stress here all the time.
But there is a difference between a submissive dog and one who has severe insecurity problems like the dog you have, and the former is the type dog I was referring to.
PP people do not change the method to suit the dog, feeling any type of hands on or correction is detrimental to the relationship between you and your dog.
I assume then, from your last sentence that you are now strictly a PP person and would not use a different method on any dog, even if the treat method was not working? (Some dogs actually don't care about treats and won't work for them.)
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Aug 28, 2006 10:23:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by willow on Aug 28, 2006 18:21:51 GMT -5
Thanks for your response too, Sibemom. What you have stated has always been my reasoning and experience even with very insecure dogs. If you are gentle, but firm with them, (some dogs will do about anything to avoid doing what you ask and if you give in to them and quit, they have won and they never will progress), and if you praise them when they become calm to your touch, even for a second or two at first, they learn your hands on them, even to manipulate them, are a good thing and they come to tolerate it very nicely with out shutting down or freaking out, because they also learn that avoidance will not cause you to stop what you are doing. As sometimes happens, too, I become insecure when I hear that the way I am doing it is wrong...even if I get results. Thanks for clearing that up for me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Aug 29, 2006 20:40:09 GMT -5
[But there is a difference between a submissive dog and one who has severe insecurity problems like the dog you have, and the former is the type dog I was referring to.
Actually, my dog is not at all what you would call insecure generally, he just has a preference for not being physically manipulated during training. He is actually a bit of an overachiever and is extremely anxious to 'get it right'. He is overly eager to please, and can become easily dejected or frustrated if he can't 'get it right' straight away and just gets stressed if you try to manipulate him into a certain position. I haven't actually trained one quite like him before, but in many ways he is a total superstar - I just needed to adjust my ideas. He always succeeds when I think up a way to communicate what I want via hands off methods, and retains his enthusiasm and drive so I do what works for us. I don't think it is a case of letting him 'get away' with anything as he is never deliberately uncooperative - quite the reverse. My other dog is totally different, much more relaxed character who probably wouldn't mind at all if you wanted to 'place sit' him or the like during training.
I assume then, from your last sentence that you are now strictly a PP person and would not use a different method on any dog, even if the treat method was not working? (Some dogs actually don't care about treats and won't work for them.) [/quote]
Absolutely not. I would choose to train a down via lure and reward as my first preference. I actually teach a puppy class and this seems to be a very easy method for a vast majority of people who attend the class. BUT if I come across a puppy that isn't isn't responding for some reason I have no problem with discussing alternatives.
For most dogs I think this is a minor point and won't make a huge difference either way - mine is definitely in the minority, only posted to say that they do exist.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Aug 29, 2006 20:54:45 GMT -5
with Brody I never had to touch him at all, I pointed to down and PLOP now all I do is look at him and plops down and rolls over Yup, this is much more like my dog that doesn't like to be manipulated. It would different if he was 'blowing me off' and I was actually intending to use the manipulation as a correction (eg if he kept going down on a sit stay), but my situation was that I have been encouraged to use manipulations in order to teach a new behaviour or refine an existing one eg place sit to stop quarters going wide on a finish. This wasn't something my dog was doing deliberately wrong, just something he didn't understand the criteria for at that point. He responded better when I taught him what I needed without physically putting him there. Once again - I am not saying this is the only way to go for all dogs.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Aug 30, 2006 9:52:27 GMT -5
At this stage he panics and becomes confused then uncooperative. I guess I misunderstood what you meant by this statement, because there is a difference between a dog who panics and becomes confused and then uncooperative, due to insecurity/fear, as compared to one like Brody, which I refer to as "wet noodle" dogs.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Aug 30, 2006 11:03:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Aug 30, 2006 16:14:27 GMT -5
Yes, wet noodle dog is very appropriate, I like that term Quite hard to describe, but I guess I can touch my dog during training, but he does interpret it is being because he has got something wrong, which upsets him. I don't think it is a case of him dictating anything, just that he responds so much better to hands off methods of teaching. For me the bottom line is that his is so quick to learn and super responsive, and tries so hard to please that it is just not necessary to force him to accept a method he isn't happy with. I love his enthusiasm and attitude to training, and I feel that physical manipulation methods do compromise that for this particular dog. If he continues to learn everything I require of him, and perform it well, then I am happy with that. I have horses too, I think they are quite a different training proposition to dogs. They do have to accept cues such as the leg on their side when we are riding rather than simply verbal cues and hand signals, but we can't manipulate them into a position in the same way we can a dog.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Aug 31, 2006 6:41:47 GMT -5
I find it very hard to grasp that your dog shuts down because you TOUCH THEM TO PUT THEM INTO POSITION that makes no sense to me So do I, Sibemom, and that is why I started this thread. ;D I am not saying that there are not dogs who do this, but again, there is a difference between soft/submissive like our Broady boy and dogs who shut down and become unresponsive to being touched and this is why I think therefore, that it is so important with this type of dog to learn to accept your touch during training. If they don't, there may come a time when you have to take a "hands on" approach and if they are not used to it they will freak out, and if nothing else, make people think you have mistreated them in the past. Worse case scenerio is what would happen if you had to suddenly grab ahold of your dog by the scruff/collar or even tail to prevent him from getting away from you? This is different than your dog accepting your hands in a loving/petting way and if the dog is not used to it, he may react by biting. I have also had/trained horses and believe me, I have had some horses that did not like being touched, because they were not taught as young horses to accept being "handled", but just like dogs, they have to be touched, if for nothing else but for grooming, and we have had horses that were not taught to load into a trailer (ever try to use treats/grain to get them to respond?...do you have a week?) ;D so you had to pick up their front feet and place them into a horse trailer to show them that you wanted them to step up/in...so there are times when you have to "position" a horse in training too, and with a 1000# animal, it makes it much easier if they are used to being touched/handled. But, Kaos, if your method works for your dog and you know he will listen to you anywhere/anytime even if you don't have a handful of treats with you or if you happen to change your tone of voice or body language, (to me that is the true test of a well trained dog) that is all that matters in the end. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Aug 31, 2006 17:39:39 GMT -5
Hmm, still hard to explain without having you meet him, but he is totally happy for me or a perfect stranger to touch him anywhere in the style of a medical examination, grab him by the collar, clip his toe nails etc, but when he considers that he is 'working' and by this I mean obedience training, he just hates to feel like he has failed, and this is his interpretation of what it means to be physically manipulated. He gets stressed, and it is the stress that then blocks any further learning or cooperation. You CAN physically manipulate him but I choose not to because it sucks as a training method for him, and additionally I see the ears go down, the happy cooperative expression change and a sad sorry stressed dog appear in his place.
I wouldn't worry at all about grabbing his collar or tail in an emergency - the only consequence would be that it wouldn't enhance any training session that took place immediately afterwards. He would probably still go through the motions of performing established behaviours (without his usual spark) but he wouldn't be in a state to think and learn for anything new.
I totally agree that all horses and dogs need to accept being touched for various reasons, but don't think this is necessarily the best way to train some behaviours. I guess the horse analogy is still difficult for me. Yes I have loaded lots of horses into lots of trailers, but I would rather plan ahead and spend time teaching a horse to be relaxed and happy about loading and unloading - well worth planning ahead and spending at least a week. I would never choose to move a horses feet up the ramp physically unless it was an absolute last resort in a medical emergency as I believe this would be stressful and dangerous for handler and horse. In additon, a horse loaded by force is one that is not going to be easy to reload the next time. A huge waste of time and stress when a week of 10 minute sessions could have made him a happy loader for life. Generally horses are taught to move away from very slight pressure, so I don't think this counts as a physical manipulation in the same way that place sitting a dog or forcably holding his mouth closed around a dumbell is?
No problem with the no treats, but in all honesty this particular dog would be likely not to recall if he thought from your voice you were angry with him. I consciously control my voice for this reason and his recall is better than any other dog I have trained. In emergencies where I can't control sounding stressed I would ask for a drop rather than 'come'.
I can't think of a scenario where I would HAVE to take a hands on approach to training, unless you mean just to grab him out of harms way (ie mangement not training)?
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 1, 2006 7:37:38 GMT -5
I GET IT Ok now I understand Kaos where you are coming from Now I am going to just give my opinion on it and not pointing any fingers or saying how you are doing it is wrong just my own feelings on this subject, because if what you are doing is working THAT IS GREAT Here goes. Now we all know Dogs are as individual as people, each with their own personalities etc... each have there own quirks, likes, dislikes. We all know to that dogs take on certain traits of their owners, in some cases dogs even resemble their owners. Athough in my case I would have to own an Irish Setter for that to happen So do you think that maybe this is not the dog at all, but that he is picking up on YOUR VIBE That maybe for some reason he is sensing something that you are giving off The same case with horses. I never used grain etc... for loading. If putting their feet on the trailer did not get them to walk in OUT CAME THE BUTT ROPE or two people with their hands together and we PUSHED THEM IN. I guess I like to get things done in as short as a time period possible because I have more to do than just try and figure out how to get my animals to respond. I use a very direct approach. If I had to mess around with treats, and all these different possiablities with results not showing in a relatively short time I would not enjoy training. So maybe this is one of those cases where the dogs actually mold to the nature of the owner, and not a bad thing if it works for you. For me I am a rather dominant person thus the reason I do not own small dogs I always found that I am bit intimidating to them without even trying so my dogs understand even if they are on the softer side that WHEN I BARK, WHEN I POSITION, it is meant for compliance and this has always worked, same thing with the horses, and believe me I had some REALLY BAD HEAD CASES I must say this has been a great debate
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 1, 2006 9:22:12 GMT -5
Yes, I agree it's great to debate in an open minded way! However, ;D, I do agree with Sibemom on this, because like her, I lead a busy life and when we owned horses, we did not normally have a week to teach new horses we bought for our outfitting business how to load in a trailer. In a lot of cases, we never would have gotten them home. ;D We also found out quickly that trying to "coax" a horse with grain/treats simply does not work. With one young (2 yo) filly I bought, I decided I would train her to load like the experts in the horse magazines said. Park the trailer in the corral and only feed her in the trailer, so that's what I did and it worked great. She was happily going in and out of the trailer to eat, but when I tried to LEAD her into the trailer, That was a whole different ball game, because she was not making the decision of going in on her own to eat. I was asking her to go in for no reason and she was having none of that! So it was back to square one....one to lead her in, another person to get behind her and "encourage" her. ;D With horses, just like dogs, if you hesitate they take that as you being unsure of yourself and what you are doing, and they react with fear/insecurity. With a young colt or filly it's a different matter. They are easily handled and when taught to load at this young age it is a piece of cake...especially if you have the mare and she loads easily. The colt will follow her right in, but if they have not been taught as babies, as so many horses aren't, the only way to do it is the "no nonsence" way. Get the job done in the least painful way possible for person and horse, but don't hesitate. We have never had a horse who was taught this way feel any other way about the trailer as a horse who was taught as a colt. Once they are successfully loaded a few times, they find out it isn't so bad after all and they load easily after that. I also agree with Sibemom about dogs. 99.9% of the time we teach them how to react to things. If we are timid/unsure of ourselves, our dogs will turn out the same way. To me there is absolutely no reason a puppy should grow up being timid and afraid of things, unless it truly is a sure case of weak nerves due to bad breeding. It's different if we get a dog at an older age who has already been programed to be fearful, aggressive etc. We didn't teach him to be that way, but if we don't "re-train" him right, he will sure stay that way and probably even get worse. It makes me crazy when volunteers in breed rescues take a foster dog in bed with them and cuddle them during thunder storms, or on the couch, "because he/she is afraid of storms." Then in the next breath they ask how to overcome their fear. I treat an older dog the same way as I would one I get as a puppy, and I don't try to analyze him and try to figure out "why" he is reacting the way he is. He can't tell me, so I can't be sure "why", and even if I did know "why", would knowing make it easier to re-train him? I don't think so. How would that determine how to re-train him? You still have to get him to face his fear and over come it. Some breeds "seem" to be more prone to fear of loud noises. My Aussie is very sound sensitive. But is it because of her breed? Probably not. More than likely it's because of how she was treated before I got her. The reason I say this is because she reacts negatively to loud vehicles and wants to chase them. In her case I know why she does this. She was an outside dog left on her own to run the fence and bark/chase everything that went by on the outside of the fence. She also does not like loud voices and especially combined with quick movement. Most would say that is also because she is a herding breed, and I agree that being a herding breed would make her more prone to want to "herd" things...or at least it should, ;D, but Buddy is also a herding breed, yet he has no desire at all to chase vehicles and does not react to loud voices, quick movement. Kara otoh, is not afraid of thunder or gun shots, like Buddy is, so to me it's obvious her former owner did not teach her to be afraid of thunder. She did not like gun shots when we first got her, but since my husband is a hunter/shooter he re-trained her not to be afraid of them and now we refer to her as "his hunting dog". ;D Well, by now I am sure every one is bored to death and falling asleep. Is that a snore I hear? I apologize for being so long winded.
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Sept 1, 2006 18:46:08 GMT -5
I think I might have been the one to inadvertently inspire this debate. My comments about the cost to the relationship of training by physically forcing the dog down were specific only to that particular dog for that particular poster for that specific exercise. It was not a general condemnation of the leadership style of training. In that poster's case she had only owned the dog a few days, there were health problems, and the dog was described as submissive and timid. The dog had shut down before the drop training started. 'Down' can be an intimidating position for a submissive dog, particularly in a crowded, distracting environment. Physically moving the dog does put them into a down, but it also makes the dog a passive participant in the learning. The learning environment is submission and fear, which is exactly what I don't want to create with a weak-nerved dog. Using a food lure and letting the dog offer the behavior builds trust. You are asking the dg to overcome their fear and think. If the dog can find the desire to follow the food, good stuff happens. I would much rather have the dog offer the behavior than to have to prove to the dog that I can make them do it. There is no one training tactic that works all the time on every dog. I hate training weak-nerved dogs. They irriate me. Give me a defiant, confident butt head every time. But bringing an uncertain dog out of their dark place and getting them to love learning, now that's cool, too. So 'purely positive' is someting I might pull out of my tool box from time to time for some dogs in some cases because it's better for the relationship. (I've checked, I still have a spine) So is a prong, so is an ecollar, and so is "physical direction". Match the tool and the tactic to the dog, not the trainer. Believe me, there have been times when I could have happily unscrewed Finn's head if that's what it had taken to teach him something.
|
|