|
Post by sibemom on Sept 1, 2006 19:20:51 GMT -5
HEY THAT'S OK we all liked this DEBATE even if it was not intended to be one It made me do alot of thinking which is hard but it was good conversation I had a day today where I wanted to UNSCREW RAVENS HEAD SHE IS A CHALLANGE LET ME TELL YOU so YEP many things are coming out of MY TOOLBOX
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 1, 2006 19:31:03 GMT -5
It's been waaaaaaaaay too quiet around here lately, so I was trying to get a conversation going to liven things up a little. ;D I am sure I bored everyone to death, but I hope I didn't offend anyone. If I did I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 2, 2006 2:02:17 GMT -5
Lol - I think you would find Willow and Sibemom that we have more in common than you think. I think you have a somewhat incorrect steotype of me, in reality I am quite a naturally dominant person too (some have said bossy!) and I don't have a lot of patience either (I wish I did). Many people think I am fairly 'hard' on my dogs as I have high expectations behaviour wise and expect good manners. My dogs don't sleep on my bed or get on my furniture!
No, I don't think Kaos is getting his dislike of being physically manipulated from me and he is not in general a nervous type, but definitely very very intelligent and sensitive. Training him is actually a pleasure as he is so quick to learn if you communicate with him in a way he relates to. Interesting my other dog, Kofi is totally the reverse type, very thick skinned and easy to live with - nothing ever worries Kofi dog including thunder, power tools, people waving big sticks or shouting etc.
Re the loading issue, actually in the past I haven't used food, but would definitely prefer to do several training sessions to teach the horse to comfortably enter and exit the trailer. To me this seems like time well spent since you then never have to waste time with a loading issue ever again. I travel my own horse at least twice a week and always on my own, so he needs to be a 'no fuss' traveller. I would only use a bum rope as a last resort as I have seen horrendous injuries result from trying to force a horse into a trailer to both horse and humans. Additionally if I am travelling to compete I need my horse to arrive as relaxed as possible and this would certainly not be the case if I had had to force him into the trailer. Bottom line - I am too impatient to have ongoing loading problems at inconvenient times.
Definitely agree this is an interesting topic, and certainly am only interested in explaining why I chose not to force a down with my dogs, not in criticising the technique for others.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 2, 2006 8:56:09 GMT -5
Understood, Kaos. ;D I agree that it is much better to take the time to train a horse to load in a gentler way than forcing them in, and that is the way we always did it when we could, but some times we didn't have that option. I would also like to make it perfectly clear that I don't and have not "force trained" every dog I have owned. It depends on the dog and the circumstances. The two dogs I have now never even have a leash on them unless it is to go to a Vet or if we are going some where and where it could be dangerous to let them out of the vehicle without a leash, like along a busy road. I have let Kara out to potty on a grassy area in a grocery store parking lot, however, and she will run and go potty and then come right back to the car. She's such a good girl! I also agree that using food is a quick method to get a scared, timid dog to trust you. I just question that it is also a great way to actually "train" a dog, even if you gradually phase out the food. To me, it is easier and in the long run, takes less time to train w/out using treat rewards, and in my case, I have found that the dogs trained w/out food as a reward were more reliably trained than the ones I started out using food as a reward. Maybe I just didn't do it right. I think it is repetition more than anything that trains. For instance: When we take the dogs in the vehicle to a camping area. We always use "kennel" to load them, because that is what we did with our Labs. We never use or have used treats to lure/reward them into the vehicle or have a leash on them and "force" them in, but after a few times of just being by the open door and saying, "kennel", now when we say "kennel" when it is time to come home, they will run from where ever they are and jump into the back of the van....even if WE are no where near the van. It always impresses people. Well, here I am....being long winded again. I will "go away" now.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 3, 2006 21:40:46 GMT -5
'I think it is repetition more than anything that trains' Yes, definitely - no matter what method you use you have to do sufficient repetitions first without then gradually introducing distractions.
'To me, it is easier and in the long run, takes less time to train w/out using treat rewards' Very hard to quantify this, and seems to depend on the trainer. I know excellent reliable obedience dogs trained both ways, and also unreliable ones who were trained with food and unreliable ones who were trained without. I guess at the end of the day each trainer probably tends to practice and refine their preferred method and hence gets quicker and more efficient at training dogs that particular way and may even develop a knack at selecting potential competition dogs who are temperamentally more likely to respond well to their preferred method.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 4, 2006 8:07:01 GMT -5
I guess at the end of the day each trainer probably tends to practice and refine their preferred method and hence gets quicker and more efficient at training dogs that particular way and may even develop a knack at selecting potential competition dogs who are temperamentally more likely to respond well to their preferred method. Yes, I agree that we tend to use the method we are most comfortable with and which has given us the best results. However, I have seen people who will not change their method even if it is not working. They are the ones who say the dog is "stupid" or "un-trainable". In my experience the dogs who appear "stupid" or "un-trainable" are dogs who are either confused or who have completely shut down due to the above mentioned owners. I also agree that in the case of most competition trainer's, and professional trainers, they will choose a dog with the temperament that responds to their training technique, and which technique combined with the "right" temperament will get results in the shortest possible time, because time is money. They do not have the time to dink around with a softer dog or a softer method (treats, no corrections) that it would take to train this type of dog. I also personally feel, after being in and talking to many Field Trial competition trainers, that aside from taking more time to train, in the end, the soft dogs do not make the best competition dogs. There are tons of books on how to choose and train a Competition Field Dog for example, and in all the ones I have read, they always say if the dog doesn't respond to the methods they have outlined in the book, you should give/sell the dog to some one who just wants a pet, or keep the dog as a pet, and get a dog more suited to the rigorous training it takes to be a competition dog, or even just a top notch personal gun dog. I have also talked to people who disagree with this and relate about "so and so" who used treats to train their dog to competition with excellent results, but again, personally, I think these dogs are few and far between. Personally, the best "companion dog" I ever owned was a Lab who washed out as a field dog. Not counting my Kara girl, of course, but she is a different breed. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 4, 2006 16:34:59 GMT -5
'In my experience the dogs who appear "stupid" or "un-trainable" are dogs who are either confused or who have completely shut down due to the above mentioned owners.'
'How true!
Don't know anything about field trials training sorry, but in obedience it seems to be very similar. If the punishment based training failed the dog was written off as 'too soft' or as not having the 'right temperament'. Very sad if you ask me. I can't generalise about 'soft dogs', but I can tell you that of my two dogs, the 'soft' one has proved himself to be the more easily trainable in terms of obedience style work as he is so easy to motivate. He has made very rapid progress using a reward based training system.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 5, 2006 9:31:30 GMT -5
Did you say you compete in ob with your dog(s)?
The first lab I owned was first trained/competed in ob and then we went into Field training/trialing with him.
Back then people said if you ob trained your field lab it would "ruin" them for the field, but we always thought that a dog must first be controllable if you expected to win in anything!!!
Wasn't long and these same people were offering us big bucks for this dog, but of course, we didn't sell him!
But that was a looooong time ago and I gave up all competition because of the "politics" involved, plus the expense, and just went into AKC ob instructing, which I am also "retired" from now. ;D
The Lab I had that did not make a good field dog was softer than our Field dog, but by no means what you would call "timid" or anything.
I always tell people he trained himself. I did not give him any formal training " drills" etc. He just "trained himself" by being my constant companion. Not that I didn't teach him the commands, but it was in an informal "everyday life" manner, and he caught on so fast like you said your current dog has. I don't ever recall having to correct him, except maybe with a "no".
They always say if you have one great dog like that in your lifetime, you are lucky.
I was blessed with at least three, and one is my current Aussie, Kara. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 5, 2006 15:07:34 GMT -5
'They always say if you have one great dog like that in your lifetime, you are lucky. I was blessed with at least three, and one is my current Aussie, Kara. ' That is so nice to hear Willow - I feel blessed too
|
|