THE KOEHLER METHOD
DUSIC
Hi,
Has anyone on this group ever heard of or used "The Koehler Method of Dog
Training"? I read the book and the method appears to be effective so I'm
just looking for people who have actually used it.
Also the "Command Performance" method. Has anyone heard of it or tried it
and what were the results. It appears to me the Keohler Method and Command
Performanne are similar.
Thank you in advance,
du...@aol.com
(13 week old red Dobe)
LDB
Dusic,
There is no need to use something as harsh as Koehler OR Dikeman on a 13
week old puppy (or most other dogs for that matter). At least Dikeman
is toned down a little. Get a couple other books. Anything by Ian
Dunbar, Excel-erated Learning by Pam Reid, or The Culture Clash, by Jean
Donaldson. Any of these can be ordered through James & Kenneth
Publishers (510) 658-8588 Good luck with your puppy. Dobes are
wonderful.
LDB
ps I am not in any way affiliated with any of these people.
They are just great trainers.
Bethgsd
As to the the Koehler Method, I trained my first shepherd using Koehler
and it worked with him, however a couple of months before he died I
started using more positive methods and his attitude zoomed way up. I
would recommend you explore several theories of training before deciding
and then pick the one that suits you and your dog the best. As for the
Command Performance video, I saw it years ago ( when I trained Koehler)
and I'm surprised Bill Koehler's estate hasn't sued for copywrite
infringement or whatever would cover this situation.
Hope this gives some help.
bet...@aol.com
WebbWeave
The Koehler Method is a little harsh, I think, for a baby Doberman. It
requires awfully good timing and a good "feel" for your dog and his/her
movements and attitudes.
The Command Performance video is a crock and a scam.
Don't waste your money. Take the child to a puppy kindergarten! CHeck it
out first to see if the trainer and you have pretty much the same
philosophy.
Jane Webb
Moon and Mudpie
Robert
Yes I am completely informed about kohlers method of guard dog training. I
am myself a professional protection dog trainer. as for his method of
training guard dogs in his day it was great but now that we know a whole
lot more about dogs and behavior it is not the beat way to go. Kohlers
method is based completely in defense training (survival instinct, Fight or
Flight). we know now that that doesn't give you the best responses. plus it
makes the dog very dangerous for people to be around. You should always
start your training with the dogs Prey drive which if I remember correctly
he does not address at all. when you start in prey you start with the dogs
confidence up and you train with less stress on the dogs nerves. when you
stress the dog in defense he is less confident in himself, learning gets
harder, teaching the release is very hard. among a bunch of other stuff.
The best example of it is if you want to teach someone to box you dont
throw him in a ring first. you first take him to the gym to teach him the
skills necessary to win or be a good fighter. thats what working in prey
first does for you. although you must at some time later in training dog to
defense but it should be last
The only references I could give you is go to www.leerburg.com and browse
there. Ed has lots of articles on the subject. he also has great videos on
the topic for sale which is better then a book and get a good reputable
trainer to do it for you. beware there are many clueless so called
protection trainers out there who would love you cash!!
any questions Email me at dog...@tnproweb.com
hope I helped Robert Bravo, Dog Days K-9 academy
LDB <aau...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<33124F...@earthlink.net>...
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 27 Feb 1997 05:24:58 GMT, "Robert"
<dog...@tnproweb.com> wrote:
>Yes I am completely informed about kohlers method of guard dog training. I
>am myself a professional protection dog trainer. as for his method of
>training guard dogs in his day it was great but now that we know a whole
>lot more about dogs and behavior it is not the beat way to go.
[ ... ]
As one" dogman" to another, it's still pretty hard to beat Koehler
training methods. This guy wasn't talking about guard dog training
anyway. He just wants to find a good way to train his 13 week old
puppy, and, yes, Koehler methods are pretty damn good methods to train
dogs. Yes, for doing some things, or for some dogs, there are better
ways, but it's still HARD to beat Koehler.
--
Dogman
qbt...@v1.arg
E-mail address rot13 encoded to foil advertising spam
Joey "Dogs" Vaffanculo Contract Locating and Communication Company
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
Katharine E. Maus
Koehler himself does not recommend using his methods on puppies. See if
you can get hold of Ian Dunbar's Sirius Puppy Training video. It's gentle,
fun, and practical, and I found that the methods really worked well.
A good book, for slightly older dogs, is Vollhard's What Every Good
Dog Should Know. Neither of these are geared toward competitive obedience
training necessarily, but they provide a good basis on which to build.
Katharine Maus and Ch. Csillag's Bartok, vizsla
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:27:37 GMT,
Katherine, Koehler says that one should wait until a puppy is 6 months
old before using most of his methods, and I absolutely agree.
However, one can also take into consideration that for a puppy younger
that 6 months, you can FLEX most of his techniques to take into
account the puppy's age. Up to 5-6 months, depending upon the puppy,
there really shouldn't be much discipline, no matter which method(s)
you decide to use.
However, this gentlemen was just looking for a method with which to
use to train his GSD, and was told that Koehler is outdated. Well, he
ain't. His methods are still pretty damn hard to beat. And many of
the "others" still incorporate many of Koehler's methods in their own
programs, only with a slightly different flavor added.
Yes, there are many other methods, with some of them equally effective
in certain areas and for certain things. I've read Dunbar, Vollhard,
et al., and ALL have something to offer the world of dog training.
And I take liberally from ALL of them. One of my objectives as a dog
trainer is to find and determine which method(s) WORK BEST for
whatever it is I'm trying to accomplish.
I'm just tired of hearing people denigrate the great contributions to
the world of dog training made by Bill Koehler. To this day, many of
his techniques are STILL used by more successful trainers than any
others.
If one is really serious about dog training, one should study
EVERYTHING and EVERYONE to find better ways to do things. Things that
work for YOU. And there really isn't any better place to start than
Koehler. Especially if one ever intends to compete in any performance
events.
PS: One day maybe I'll write my own training book. Folks will then
rightly say, "Hey, you've STOLEN all your ideas from lots of other
trainers!"
I'll just smile and say "Yes, I have. But what's your point?"
Milton Crandall
I've read about both the Koehler method and the "Click and treat" method,
which seem about as oppisite as can be. Can click and treat be as
effective in the long run as Koehler? I am trying to decide which method
to start my 6 mo old weimeraner on.
Milton Crandall
Juanita R. Alvarez
I used the Koehler method on my Weims, one was 6 mo. old to boot.
I think for their personality it is a good training method. Personally,
I wait until they are over a year to do Koehler simply because I have a
hard time training a dog under a year, their attention span is too short
for me. I have also heard some good things about Schultzhund(sp?)
training though I have never used this method myself.
Juanita, Saavik, Kira and Ezmeralda the Cat
MBrackmann
First let me state clearly that the Koehler Method of dog training was
never intended for a 13 week old puppy. Koehler's first book: The Koehler
Method of Dog Training is not only a book about how to train dogs, but is
also an attack on the Cookie Training Theory of dog training. Koehler
describes how and when to correct the dog. The corrections are always
force full, fair, and most importantly controlled by the dog and his
behavior. So often Koehler is put down because he labeled as harsh, and
this label comes from his polemic style of writing. But if you look a bit
deeper you start to see a clearly defined philosophy that emerges.
Koehler believed that dogs are thinking, reasoning animals and that they
have a birthright in common with all God's creations. That is they have a
right to experience the consequences of there own actions. Koehler speaks
of responsebillty, building charter (in the dog), and trust.
The positive motivation people that are quick to criticize Koehler have
real insight to offer. Positive motivation alone can shape remarkable
behaviors in dogs, but, it falls way short when it comes to building
language.
Mark Brackmann
Jacksonville, Fl
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 28 Feb 1997 14:05:30 GMT, Milton Crandall
<CRAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I've read about both the Koehler method and the "Click and treat" method,
>which seem about as oppisite as can be. Can click and treat be as
>effective in the long run as Koehler? I am trying to decide which method
>to start my 6 mo old weimeraner on.
>
>Milton Crandall
Milton, it all depends on YOU. No, click and treat will not get the
job done "in the long run." But some people run farther than others,
eh? So, again, it depends upon how far you want to go, and in what
areas of obedience you want to explore.
If you're sense of timing is not very, very good, and your knowledge
of dog behavior and personalities is poor, I'd go with the clicker
training. Koehler methods require a better understanding of your dog
and dog behavior, in general, than other methods. Koehler methods
CAN, indeed, be harsh and ineffective in the wrong hands.
Learn about them BOTH and then make up your own mind which method is
best for YOU and YOUR dog, and what you're trying to accomplish. You
may even wish to borrow from BOTH methods, eh? Try both ways with
your dog and find out for yourself which way or ways are better for
YOU and YOUR dog.
Betsy Barton
Milton Crandall wrote:
>
> I've read about both the Koehler method and the "Click and treat" method,
> which seem about as oppisite as can be. Can click and treat be as
> effective in the long run as Koehler? I am trying to decide which method
> to start my 6 mo old weimeraner on.
>
> Milton Crandall
In my opinion, you can incorporate things from all different methods.
What is important is what will motivate *your* dog. I have read about a
lot of different methods and been to some seminars and each one helps me
define what kind of trainer I want to be. But I do not subscribe to just
one way. All methods do not work with all dogs. Most methods need to be
adapted to fit the needs of the individual dog.
Good luck and have FUN!
Betsy
George Boggs
In article <19970228162...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
mbrac...@aol.com (MBrackmann) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> The positive motivation people that are quick to criticize Koehler have
> real insight to offer. Positive motivation alone can shape remarkable
> behaviors in dogs, but, it falls way short when it comes to building
> language.
Koehler was full of crap. Negative consequences do not need to be part of a
dog's life. There's nothing *natural* about negative consequences. "Not
natural" and "negative" all start with "n". You think that's a coincidence?
Koehler was a Nazi. Another "n", another coincidence? I think not.
Why, the very thought that dogs should experience negative consequences is
abuse. You can train *anything* - yes, even tensor analysis - using
positive methods. It just takes time. If you don't have time, you shouldn't
have dogs. Personally, I quit my job and abandoned my family until my dog
could do double integrals. Real dog lovers live in monasteries.
Would you cruelly pinch your child for not playing fetch? Would you put
your child's hand in an electrical socket for talking? Would you lock your
child in a tiny, airless, windowless box and leave it there for weeks and
months on end to toilet train it? Well, then, why brutalize your dog?
People who brutalize dogs are probably child abusers.
I really admired the guy who posted here that his approach to handling
biting dogs was shaping successively softer bites using positive
reinforcement. There's a guy who really likes dogs. Truly caring people
don't mind getting bitten. It's part of the responsibility you take on for
a lifetime.
Anyone who uses negative methods is an unfeeling brute and shouldn't be
allowed around dogs. If you know anybody like that, steal their dog.
They're probably just going to starve it then donate it to some sleazeball
lab that's testing poison gas after it wanders around unsupervised and
starts a dozen litters with hip dysplasia. Maybe we should donate them to a
lab and have them neutered, eh?
Oh, BTW, I was just summarizing a lot of the probable responses to this
thread in advance. I think I covered them all.
G. Boggs
gbo...@uswest.com Posterity -- you will never know how much it has
cost my generation to preserve your freedom.
I hope you will make good use of it.
John Quincy Adams
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 28 Feb 1997 23:38:11 GMT, gbo...@uswest.com
(George Boggs) wrote:
[...]
>Oh, BTW, I was just summarizing a lot of the probable responses to this
>thread in advance. I think I covered them all.
Thanks, for letting me know this, George. I guess I can unrack my
shotgun -- for now. You were getting awfully close to having your own
name offered up to Joey "Dogs" Vaffanculo. Heh-heh-heh.
Milton Crandall
Can a person use a metal training collar and still be considered humane?
Do dogs need to be taught that you are domanant over them ? 2 questions I
am concerned about before I start a training method.
Thanks
Amy Hendrix
Milton Crandall (CRAN...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Can a person use a metal training collar and still be considered humane?
The important thing is not the equipment, but how you use it -- a
metal collar used with good timing and a clear sense of when to correct
and when not to is fine; you can really mess up a dog on a buckle collar
by nagging at him or jerking him around at random. What matters is the
person doing the training, whether you use a training collar or no
collar at all.
: Do dogs need to be taught that you are domanant over them ?
How's your relationship with your dog? Chances are, he already knows
that you're dominant. If he doesn't -- if he humps you, bites you, lifts
his leg on your furniture -- you need more help than a book or a
newsgroup can provide.
And if you aren't sure, obedience train your dog -- teaching him stays,
recalls, heeling, and all the rest of it, whatever your training
method, is an excellent way to remind him that you're the one in control.
--
Amy Hendrix <ahen...@cris.com>
http://www.cris.com/~ahendrix
LDB
Amy Hendrix wrote:
snip :
> : Do dogs need to be taught that you are domanant over them ?
>
> How's your relationship with your dog? Chances are, he already knows
> that you're dominant. If he doesn't -- if he humps you, bites you, lifts
> his leg on your furniture -- you need more help than a book or a
> newsgroup can provide.
Sorry but, I don't see how lifting one's leg on the furniture is an
attempt at dominance. I see it as not house-trained. I can see how it
could be perceived as marking of territory, but that doesn't mean it is
directed towards you and that he is trying to be *dominant*. Maybe
towards some other dog who may happen by. How would you perceive it
when you are walking your dog and he lifts his leg? You are the only
one there. Is that directed towards you, too?
LDB
RL Neufeld
Well, I guess the difference I see is that the house is all mine, as far
as the dog is concerned. None of it is his, not his food, not his
dishes, not his toys, not his bed, not the couch, so he doesn't have to
worry about marking any of it, does he ? :) I will look after making
sure nobody steals away the furniture - I guess if anyone has to mark
our furniture, I will do it, not him (so far it has not come to that
:). Since it is all mine, he is stepping over his boundaries to start
marking anything in the house and I don't care if he is doing it to mark
it against other dogs, me or the neighbors.
Outside, if he wants to mark trees or whatever to let other dogs know he
was there, that's different (as long as he is not supposed to be heeling
or walking close). I don't claim the whole outside world.
All of that said, one day very shortly after he discovered the joy of
lifting his leg, I was talking on the phone and he walked up and lifted
his leg *on me*. Fortunately for both of us, he has pretty bad aim, so
he didn't actually hit me. But you can believe he has only done *that*
once. Still, correcting him was made harder because I was holding back
laughing at him, the big goof - what on earth possesses them, sometimes,
to think that kind of thing might be a good idea?
>
> LDB
Roxanne
Nancy E. Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
RL Neufeld <atki...@cadvision.com> wrote in article
<33191D...@cadvision.com>...
> LDB wrote:
snip
> All of that said, one day very shortly after he discovered the joy of
> lifting his leg, I was talking on the phone and he walked up and lifted
> his leg *on me*. Fortunately for both of us, he has pretty bad aim, so
> he didn't actually hit me. But you can believe he has only done *that*
> once. Still, correcting him was made harder because I was holding back
> laughing at him, the big goof - what on earth possesses them, sometimes,
> to think that kind of thing might be a good idea?
>
> >
> > LDB
>
> Roxanne
>
Roxane -
I have always viewed that little error as being an action that verbalizes
something like this - this is MINE signed The Stud.
As none of my male dogs have ever tried it with me personally I think my
guys have the correct reading on our relationship - I am HERS but She is
the Alpha Male's Alpha Bitch. My partner Nelson kind of sets up that little
rule <G>.
Funniest one I ever saw was the well known show dog that inevitably
lifted his leg on the judge if he did not win - there were some who
wondered just how the prof. handler managed to train him to do that! I've
seen group winners mark the first place spot too <g> - I figure that is dog
for This space is mine now and forever <VBG>
Nancy
Carol Dunster
On 28 Feb 1997 16:24:41 GMT, mbrac...@aol.com (MBrackmann) wrote:
>First let me state clearly that the Koehler Method of dog training was
>never intended for a 13 week old puppy. Koehler's first book: The Koehler
>Method of Dog Training is not only a book about how to train dogs, but is
>also an attack on the Cookie Training Theory of dog training.
I used Koehler's books when I first started out many years ago. There
is a continuity that I still appreciate and a sense of fairness. The
method worked well with the harder dogs that I raised then. My
breeding program worked toward a softer, more willing temperament,
which made some of the firmer methods unnecessary. Since then I have
found that many dogs respond even better to more positive,
motivational approaches. I don't agree with the "Cookie Training
Theory" - if I understand what you mean by that, but there are many
ways that a positive behavioral approach is a wonderful training tool
that makes training more fun and gives a better attitude.
One interesting point is that my mother attended a Koehler clinic and
found that he was very positive and praised freely while allowing the
dog to figure out how to work with you. He was much more positive and
motivational than she expected.
> Koehler
>describes how and when to correct the dog. The corrections are always
>force full, fair, and most importantly controlled by the dog and his
>behavior.
Actually you don't correct the dog - he corrects himself through the
laws of physics. So your observation that the dog corrects itself is
correct.
> So often Koehler is put down because he labeled as harsh, and
>this label comes from his polemic style of writing. But if you look a bit
>deeper you start to see a clearly defined philosophy that emerges.
>Koehler believed that dogs are thinking, reasoning animals and that they
>have a birthright in common with all God's creations. That is they have a
>right to experience the consequences of there own actions. Koehler speaks
>of responsebillty, building charter (in the dog), and trust.
I agree with this viewpoint of Koehler's methods. Because the dog is
finding natural limits, not being corrected by the handler, there is
not the anger or lack of communication. Dogs can also be taught
similar thing by different methods. Using Operant Conditioning
methods, the dog also builds trust and takes responsibility for its
actions - the dog causes a reward for the correct action rather than
causing a correction for an incorrect action. Many trainers think that
the dog learns better in an environment that does not include pain and
possible fear. The blood chemistry is calmer and the brain more
receptive.
>The positive motivation people that are quick to criticize Koehler have
>real insight to offer. Positive motivation alone can shape remarkable
>behaviors in dogs, but, it falls way short when it comes to building
>language.
Actually, the modern methods of positive motivation - operant
conditioning and the use of clicker training - build language in a
similar way, but with positive reinforcements. The dog begins to work
for the joy of working and learning and (just like Koehler's method
here) many repetitions make the behavior automatic and reliable and
working under different conditions teach the dog to follow directions
under heavy distraction. This is way more the Cookie Training - it is
using positive rewards paired with a trained secondary reward to
explain clearly and quickly to the dog what is wanted and to motivate
it to do the action. You might want to look into these web sites (as
well as books by Karen Pryor and Gary Wilkes for starters) :
http://www.dontshootthedog.com
http://www.primenet.com/~joell/clicker.htm
http://www.dog-play.com/obedience.html#clicker
http://www.jagunet.com/~spectrum/topdog/
http://www.phys.unm.edu/~helix/clicker.html
http://www.wazoo.com/~marge/Clicker_Trainers/Clicker_Trainers.html
Anyway - to me it is clear that these trainers are building language
that is even more rewarding and exciting than that you lear from
Koehler. Experiment - you may find that using a combination of methods
will give you even better results.
Carol
--
Carwyn Silky Terriers
http://www.prodogs.com/dbn/carwyn/index.htm
Carol Dunster
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:20:16 GMT, qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>On a cold day in Hell, 28 Feb 1997 14:05:30 GMT, Milton Crandall
><CRAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>I've read about both the Koehler method and the "Click and treat" method,
>>which seem about as oppisite as can be. Can click and treat be as
>>effective in the long run as Koehler? I am trying to decide which method
>>to start my 6 mo old weimeraner on.
>>
>>Milton Crandall
>
>
>Milton, it all depends on YOU. No, click and treat will not get the
>job done "in the long run." But some people run farther than others,
>eh? So, again, it depends upon how far you want to go, and in what
>areas of obedience you want to explore.
I'm not so sure that click and treat *won't* get the job done - there
have been some very impressive results quoted on the click/treat email
lists. Having been learning about click/treat and placing the
scientific knowledge in my dog training background, I think that
click/treat and Koehler are basically two sides of behavioral
training.
The click/trick method is based on positive reinforcement. Positive
reinforcement is doing something (giving a treat or playing with the
dog) when a behavior occurs that *increases* the chance of it
happening again. It tends to be slower, mainly because it can be
difficult to find rewards that are more compelling than the
environment. It is very efficient if the handler understands it well,
has good timing and a clear understanding of their dog.
Koehler's method is based on negative reinforcement. Negative
reinforcement is to quit doing something so that the behavior is more
likely to happen again. (The dog hits the end of the lead, having
gotten out of position, the discomfort stops when he moves back into
position, thus encouraging him to be in position.) If your timing and
understanding of this method is clear, it is very powerful.
>If you're sense of timing is not very, very good, and your knowledge
>of dog behavior and personalities is poor, I'd go with the clicker
>training. Koehler methods require a better understanding of your dog
>and dog behavior, in general, than other methods. Koehler methods
>CAN, indeed, be harsh and ineffective in the wrong hands.
Because the click/treat method is fun and positive, your dog will be
more forgiving of mistakes than with negative reinforcement. poorly
timed negative reinforcement becomes abuse, because the dog cannot
then make connections between his behavior and the correction, so
cannot make it stop by doing the right behavior. With the click/treat
method, if you misapply it you run the risk of confusing your dog, but
instead of shutting down (when confusion is painful) it will remain
happy and will continue to try different behaviors, thus giving you
the chance to correct your mistake. This is why it is an exciting
training method and considered an advance by many people.
>Learn about them BOTH and then make up your own mind which method is
>best for YOU and YOUR dog, and what you're trying to accomplish. You
>may even wish to borrow from BOTH methods, eh? Try both ways with
>your dog and find out for yourself which way or ways are better for
>YOU and YOUR dog.
I agree with Joe on this idea - learn all you can about both methods
and when you can see the correlations between them and how they fit
into behaviorist theory, you will have a really great understanding
into training!
Many people use methods where they basically lead the dog into
position and reward it for being there. This can work, but it seems to
me that the dog will have trouble figuring out what *he* needs to do
to get the reward (since you will be *doing* things and not him). I
prefer to set the dog up to figure out what gets the reward or the
discomfort, so that the dog becomes a partner in its training. This
makes the dog concentrate and really *learn*. In most cases dogs learn
to love learning, just like people.
Remember that the Koehler method works best with lots of praise when
the dog is doing the desired behavior. This adds the positive
reinforcer into the equation. The dog's correction is *not* done by
the handler - I had my best luck when my dog and I played games with
it and I was cheerful and upbeat. The dog should know that you are
happy that it is learning and that momentary discomfort is brought
about by its mistakes, not angry abusive handling.
Thanks Joe for the interesting debate on training techniques!
George Boggs
In article <33367a9a...@news1.i1.net>, qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>
> On a cold day in Hell, 28 Feb 1997 23:38:11 GMT, gbo...@uswest.com
> (George Boggs) wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Oh, BTW, I was just summarizing a lot of the probable responses to this
> >thread in advance. I think I covered them all.
>
> Thanks, for letting me know this, George. I guess I can unrack my
> shotgun -- for now. You were getting awfully close to having your own
> name offered up to Joey "Dogs" Vaffanculo. Heh-heh-heh.
>
Jus' tryin' to be helpful.
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Mon, 03 Mar 1997 14:34:49 GMT,
cdun...@Ritzville.org (Carol Dunster) wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:20:16 GMT, qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>>On a cold day in Hell, 28 Feb 1997 14:05:30 GMT, Milton Crandall
>><CRAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>I've read about both the Koehler method and the "Click and treat" method,
>>>which seem about as oppisite as can be. Can click and treat be as
>>>effective in the long run as Koehler? I am trying to decide which method
>>>to start my 6 mo old weimeraner on.
>>>Milton Crandall
>>Milton, it all depends on YOU. No, click and treat will not get the
>>job done "in the long run." But some people run farther than others,
>>eh? So, again, it depends upon how far you want to go, and in what
>>areas of obedience you want to explore.
>
>I'm not so sure that click and treat *won't* get the job done - there
>have been some very impressive results quoted on the click/treat email
>lists. Having been learning about click/treat and placing the
>scientific knowledge in my dog training background, I think that
>click/treat and Koehler are basically two sides of behavioral
>training.
Carol, let me be more precise. Clicker training hasn't cut it at all
in training retrievers for field trials or hunt tests. Quite a few
people have given it a try, and none have had ANY success with it.
And while I don't train dogs for the obedience ring, and unless I'm
wrong about this, I don't think clicker training has produced any
obedience champions either.
I predominantly use the electronic collar myself, as do almost all of
the trainers of the most successful dogs in field trials, hunt tests,
etc. But you REALLY have to know what you're doing to use an
electronic collar.
>The click/trick method is based on positive reinforcement.
Yes, and that's exactly why it hasn't worked very well training field
trial dogs.
>Positive
>reinforcement is doing something (giving a treat or playing with the
>dog) when a behavior occurs that *increases* the chance of it
>happening again. It tends to be slower, mainly because it can be
>difficult to find rewards that are more compelling than the
>environment. It is very efficient if the handler understands it well,
>has good timing and a clear understanding of their dog.
Carol, I have had a standing offer of a $1000 prize to any trainer who
can train a field trial dog using ONLY positive methods and who gets
even a finish at an OPEN or UNLIMITED field trial. I've been making
this offer for years now and no one has ever even tried to collect on
it. In fact, I'm even thinking of raising the amount to $10,000.
Of course, you're welcome to give it a go, eh? Heh-heh-heh.
Huh?
[...]
PS: Clicker training is an excellent method to teach SOME dogs SOME
things, but it, too, is no panacea. The sooner trainers learn that
there is no panacea, the faster they will make progress.
Amy Hendrix
Dogman (qbt...@v1.arg) wrote:
: PS: Clicker training is an excellent method to teach SOME dogs SOME
: things, but it, too, is no panacea. The sooner trainers learn that
: there is no panacea, the faster they will make progress.
It may surprise you to hear this, Joe, but there's at least one
clicker trainer out here that agrees with you on this point. The
clicker is a tool, it can help make things work better and more
efficiently, and it seems to make people think hard about their
training methods in productive ways. But there's no magic to it. No
more than there's magic in the more traditional methods, right?
I'd love to claim your thousand bucks -- I could use it -- but I'm
afraid I just don't know much about the field trial world.
Elizabeth B. Naime
In article <331adcc9...@news.Brigadoon.com>, cdun...@Ritzville.org (Carol Dunster) writes:
<snip>
> The click/trick method is based on positive reinforcement. Positive
> reinforcement is doing something (giving a treat or playing with the
> dog) when a behavior occurs that *increases* the chance of it
> happening again. It tends to be slower, mainly because it can be
> difficult to find rewards that are more compelling than the
> environment. It is very efficient if the handler understands it well,
> has good timing and a clear understanding of their dog.
Carol, are you sure click & treat *is* slower? This idea came up on
the clicker training list, and most of us thought that positive
reinforcement was the slower method. But that assumption didn't hold
up when we started looking at how soon the dog is actually doing the
desired behavior by itself, without corrections. That is, which dog
progresses faster to heeling OFF lead. I recall a couple of trainers
pointing out that when they took the leashes off of their jerk &
praise graduates, who had supposedly "known" heel, sit, down, stay and
recall, the training came off also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth B. Naime * Email may be forwarded and/or posted
els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu *
CUR 70 / FUR 212 * * Standard Disclaimers Apply*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 3 Mar 1997 17:55:03 GMT, Ahen...@cris.com (Amy
Hendrix) wrote:
>Dogman (qbt...@v1.arg) wrote:
>
>: PS: Clicker training is an excellent method to teach SOME dogs SOME
>: things, but it, too, is no panacea. The sooner trainers learn that
>: there is no panacea, the faster they will make progress.
>
>It may surprise you to hear this, Joe, but there's at least one
>clicker trainer out here that agrees with you on this point. The
>clicker is a tool, it can help make things work better and more
>efficiently, and it seems to make people think hard about their
>training methods in productive ways. But there's no magic to it. No
>more than there's magic in the more traditional methods, right?
You bet! There is only "magic" in looking for ANYTHING that may WORK
BETTER than what you're already doing!
>I'd love to claim your thousand bucks -- I could use it -- but I'm
>afraid I just don't know much about the field trial world.
Amy, give it a try. We can always use new blood, so to speak. And
I'd love you the money! I'd consider it an INVESTMENT.
April Quist
Dogman (qbt...@v1.arg) wrote:
: Carol, let me be more precise. Clicker training hasn't cut it at all
: in training retrievers for field trials or hunt tests. Quite a few
: people have given it a try, and none have had ANY success with it.
: And while I don't train dogs for the obedience ring, and unless I'm
: wrong about this, I don't think clicker training has produced any
: obedience champions either.
Funny - we're having a similar discussion on the Obed-Comp email
list.
There are dogs with OTChs whose trainers have used clickers as one
training tool, but I haven't heard yet of any obedience trainer who's
managed to train a dog to an OTCh using only a clicker with no
corrections at all to back it up. I suspect there are *some*
individual dogs and trainers who will do it at some time, but I
think they'll be the exception rather than the rule.
April with Levi and Caper, the Border Collie Hurricanes
aqu...@netcom.com
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:36:41 GMT, aqu...@netcom.com
(April Quist) wrote:
[...]
>Funny - we're having a similar discussion on the Obed-Comp email
>list.
>
>There are dogs with OTChs whose trainers have used clickers as one
>training tool, but I haven't heard yet of any obedience trainer who's
>managed to train a dog to an OTCh using only a clicker with no
>corrections at all to back it up.
Yep, that's what I meant. No championships using ONLY clicker
training.
> I suspect there are *some*
>individual dogs and trainers who will do it at some time, but I
>think they'll be the exception rather than the rule.
I don't think it will ever happen.
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>There are dogs with OTChs whose trainers have used clickers as one
>training tool, but I haven't heard yet of any obedience trainer who's
>managed to train a dog to an OTCh using only a clicker with no
I had heard of someone who got through Open with a clicker and no
corrections. But I had also heard that Utility was a no go. The problems
came up with surprise surprise (ho ho) articles.
Ann, Twzl & Sligo
--
********************************************
Anyone who is such a scaredy cccatt that they MAIl their flames to me
rather than posting them, will see them posted as a followup to the thread.
Carol Dunster
On 3 Mar 97 11:49:28 CST, els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Elizabeth B.
Naime) wrote:
>Carol, are you sure click & treat *is* slower?
No, I'm not! In fact I suspect that it could quicker and that the
speed of training is dependent on the timing and talent of the trainer
and the quickness of the dog. I really shouldn't have said that - not
paying enough attention, I guess :-)
>This idea came up on
>the clicker training list, and most of us thought that positive
>reinforcement was the slower method. But that assumption didn't hold
>up when we started looking at how soon the dog is actually doing the
>desired behavior by itself, without corrections. That is, which dog
>progresses faster to heeling OFF lead. I recall a couple of trainers
>pointing out that when they took the leashes off of their jerk &
>praise graduates, who had supposedly "known" heel, sit, down, stay and
>recall, the training came off also.
Thanks for setting me straight. My own theory (if I was just a good
enough trainer :-) is that a careful combination of both positive and
negative reinforcers would be the most efficient, but I will prefer to
err on the side of positive (being more fun for me and my dog and not
into trying for 200 scores). I also think that all training has to be
tailored for the dog and for its owner. My Silkys are vastly different
in temperament and pain tolerance than Joe's Retrievers. They respond
differently to pain as a stimulus. It is fascinating...
Carol Dunster
On A Dark and Stormy Night, Mon, 03 Mar 1997 17:28:20 GMT,
qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>Carol, I have had a standing offer of a $1000 prize to any trainer who
>can train a field trial dog using ONLY positive methods and who gets
>even a finish at an OPEN or UNLIMITED field trial. I've been making
>this offer for years now and no one has ever even tried to collect on
>it. In fact, I'm even thinking of raising the amount to $10,000.
>
>Of course, you're welcome to give it a go, eh? Heh-heh-heh.
>
>Huh?
Yeah - I can see my 10 pound Silky out there doing blind retrieves in
the water! He does like to swim, but he sinks after a couple of
minutes! Maybe if I shave his hair off....
Your points about field work are well taken. I suspect that many of
the distractions are more rewarding than anything you can give the dog
for a reward. I will admit to not being an expert in field training,
though I have some idea what you are trying to accomplish. I was
talking to the pet owner as a trainer, and think that clicker training
is a very useful tool for the less accomplished trainer.
Maybe we need to get Karen Pryor involved... ;-) Besides - you can't
fool me, it would take more than $1000 just to get a dog that could do
the work, if I could train it! Then I would have to raise it, feed the
blasted thing for years (more than all of my Silkys put together),
train it - I would probably lose money even if I got the $10,000! Nah,
I think you should do it yourself, just to prove yourself wrong! <gr>
Now, I'm getting sassy....
Robin Nuttall
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together wrote:
>
> In <aquistE6...@netcom.com> aqu...@netcom.com (April Quist) writes:
>
> >There are dogs with OTChs whose trainers have used clickers as one
> >training tool, but I haven't heard yet of any obedience trainer who's
> >managed to train a dog to an OTCh using only a clicker with no
>
> I had heard of someone who got through Open with a clicker and no
> corrections. But I had also heard that Utility was a no go. The problems
> came up with surprise surprise (ho ho) articles.
I know of a dobe bitch trained purely with the clicker. Her name is
Kyjur's Baby Ruth v Jandrew, CDX. She was in the Doberman Top 20
Obedience last year. I know she's gotten several HIT. I don't know if
she has her UD yet.
--
Robin, Jasper and Dreamer
robin_...@muccmail.missouri.edu
(my opinions are strictly my own!)
Doberman page:
http://www.hsc.missouri.edu/people/robin/
Elizabeth B. Naime
> I had heard of someone who got through Open with a clicker and no
> corrections. But I had also heard that Utility was a no go. The problems
> came up with surprise surprise (ho ho) articles.
Are you sure you aren't confusing the play retrieve with the inducive
shaped retrieve? There's no reason why articles should present any
additional problem, unless the trainer is using a tie-down board which
might indeed be confusing to a dog who's not accustomed to learning by
corrections. People who are using click and treat on the mailing list
for that training method aren't reporting any additional difficulty
with articles.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Hendrix
Dogman (qbt...@v1.arg) wrote:
: to do with pain and a lot to dog with the dog learning how to TAKE
: CONTROL. Take control over what, you ask?
:
: Take control over WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN to him next.
Ah, Joe, now you're talking like a true clicker trainer!
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>Are you sure you aren't confusing the play retrieve with the inducive
>shaped retrieve? There's no reason why articles should present any
Nope. FWIW I doubt that anyone could get through Open in a timely manner
with just a play retrieve. Inducive ok, play no. And I say that as someone
who hangs out with lots of high powered Sporting Dogs, most of whom also
participate in the AKC Hunting Test program and most of whom will fetch
anything you point them at. They are all still force fetched...so I don't
believe that a play retrieve would get you even through Open. Utililty
would of course be a nightmare with a play retrieve alone!!
Now...:
>additional problem, unless the trainer is using a tie-down board which
>might indeed be confusing to a dog who's not accustomed to learning by
>corrections. People who are using click and treat on the mailing list
>for that training method aren't reporting any additional difficulty
>with articles.
Are they trialing dogs in Utility now? And, did they use anything in
addition to the clicker?
I am not sure how a clicker would work with articles. I would be curious
to know how it is used with them. You are not supposed to be telling the
dog anythign till he leaves the pile and is back near you, so where would
you click? And how does the dog know he is right?
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 4 Mar 1997 18:05:27 GMT, Ahen...@cris.com (Amy
Hendrix) wrote:
>Dogman (qbt...@v1.arg) wrote:
>
>: to do with pain and a lot to dog with the dog learning how to TAKE
>: CONTROL. Take control over what, you ask?
>:
>: Take control over WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN to him next.
>
>Ah, Joe, now you're talking like a true clicker trainer!
Heh-heh-heh. Hey, I LIKE clicker training! I just don't use it for
retriever training.
But smart trainers have been getting smart dogs to learn how to take
control (over what is going to happen to them next) long before
clicker training was ever thought of.
In fact, I think even that guy ... whats his name? Ko ... aaaah ...
Koe ... aaaah ... Koeh ... aaah ... Koehler ... or something like
that, even thought of it, eh? Heh-heh-heh.
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Tue, 04 Mar 1997 05:12:03 GMT,
cdun...@Ritzville.org (Carol Dunster) wrote:
[...]
>Your points about field work are well taken. I suspect that many of
>the distractions are more rewarding than anything you can give the dog
>for a reward. I will admit to not being an expert in field training,
>though I have some idea what you are trying to accomplish. I was
>talking to the pet owner as a trainer, and think that clicker training
>is a very useful tool for the less accomplished trainer.
Carol, I agree, it's a very good system for the average pet owner, but
as I said before, "in the long run," it just doesn't get the job done.
And some people run longer and farther than others.
>Maybe we need to get Karen Pryor involved... ;-)
The offer is open to anyone. Karen included.
>Besides - you can't
>fool me, it would take more than $1000 just to get a dog that could do
>the work, if I could train it!
Aaah, but Carol, if you truly believe in something, you should want to
do it for NOTHING, eh?
>Then I would have to raise it, feed the
>blasted thing for years (more than all of my Silkys put together),
>train it - I would probably lose money even if I got the $10,000! Nah,
>I think you should do it yourself, just to prove yourself wrong! <gr>
Carol, I would try dining with the Devil himself if I thought he would
teach me something about training dogs that was BETTER or more
EFFECTIVE than what I was already doing.
Would I even give up my beloved George Dickel, the finest sour mash
whisky under the sun? Naaaah.
April Quist
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together (alg...@panix.com) wrote:
: Nope. FWIW I doubt that anyone could get through Open in a timely manner
: with just a play retrieve. Inducive ok, play no. And I say that as someone
: who hangs out with lots of high powered Sporting Dogs, most of whom also
: participate in the AKC Hunting Test program and most of whom will fetch
: anything you point them at. They are all still force fetched...so I don't
: believe that a play retrieve would get you even through Open. Utililty
: would of course be a nightmare with a play retrieve alone!!
I did - with my first Border Collie, Shiloh. She was a retrieve
maniac, and had a one-track mind when it came to retrieving a ball,
Frisbee, *or* dumbell. And I didn't know it would help to teach her a
correction for a retrieve (there were a few - very few - times a
correction would have helped on the retrieve).
She got through Open, no problem. And she got through Utility (and
the articles) without much problem.
But the retrieve was the only thing that I "trained" (I really
can't say I trained her to retrieve - she just did it) her to do
without corrections.
I suspect if a dog ever gets an OTCh with purely positive training,
it'll be a "work is everything to me" Border Collie - but one that
isn't as bright as the normal BC (because the high intelligence makes
them a little too, um... "creative" in obedience).
: I am not sure how a clicker would work with articles. I would be curious
: to know how it is used with them. You are not supposed to be telling the
: dog anythign till he leaves the pile and is back near you, so where would
: you click? And how does the dog know he is right?
I think if I were doing it, I'd probably spread the articles *way*
out, with several feet between each. And probably start with only one
or two out there. Then I'd click when the dog got close to the scented
article at first. Why would you have to wait until the dog is back to
you in the early training stages? What's the term... "successive
approximation," I think?
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Tue, 04 Mar 1997 05:12:06 GMT,
cdun...@Ritzville.org (Carol Dunster) wrote:
[...]
>My Silkys are vastly different
>in temperament and pain tolerance than Joe's Retrievers. They respond
>differently to pain as a stimulus. It is fascinating...
Carol, yes, my retrievers have a very, very high tolerance for pain,
just as all hunting dogs must have. But my training methods (with a
few notable exceptions, like snake aversion training) have very little
to do with pain and a lot to dog with the dog learning how to TAKE
CONTROL. Take control over what, you ask?
Take control over WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN to him next.
--
Elizabeth
In article <331e062d...@news1.i1.net>, Dogman says...
>Carol, I have had a standing offer of a $1000 prize to any trainer who
>can train a field trial dog using ONLY positive methods and who gets
>even a finish at an OPEN or UNLIMITED field trial. I've been making
>this offer for years now and no one has ever even tried to collect on
>it. In fact, I'm even thinking of raising the amount to $10,000.
Joe -- Earlier in your post you also mentioned that you don't think
clicker-trained dogs can be competitive in obedience. There are actually
a number of trainers who use clickers or other forms of operant
conditioning/ positive reinforcement (using praise instead of food, for
instance) -- Patty Ruzzo,Dawn Jecs, etc.
Is your bet open to obedience, too? If so, what are the criteria? My
dog Emma and I would like to try to take you up on that. She's just now
ready for Novice, so it will be a while. But it will give us another
goal.
BTW, she's an All-American, so her titles will be UKC ones. What title
would you like us to achieve with our clicker training?
:-)
Elizabeth
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>or two out there. Then I'd click when the dog got close to the scented
>article at first. Why would you have to wait until the dog is back to
>you in the early training stages? What's the term... "successive
>approximation," I think?
I guess I would be afraid that the dog might think that the click meant
that he was ok, when in fact he was still on the pile, rather tentative
about the correct article. Obviously, if you are very good at reading the
dog this wouldn't be an issue. But I know from watching people using
successive approximation as a training tool, that too often when the dog
shows even a tiny inkling of understanding something we rush in and reward
or help. WHich would be fine, but I think it might be confusing in
articles...rewarding the wrong thing or the wrong stage.
I went to a Janet Lewis seminar a few months ago in which she had us do
this to teach our dogs to pick our keys up off of the floor. Sligo was NOT
a good demo dog for this, as his reaction to the whole thing was to grab
the keys and give them to me. So Janet had me shape him to sit on a
folding chair. That worked a bit better, as he actually had to be shaped
for that, versus, "see something on the floor and stuff it into your mouth
as fast as you can or else", something that is a combination of being a
Golden and being a force fetched Golden who was confused and thus offered
a behavior. Quickly. :)
lonli...@aol.com
In article <3323a972...@news.Brigadoon.com>, cdun...@Ritzville.org (Carol Dunster) writes:
>Thanks for setting me straight. My own theory (if I was just a good
>enough trainer :-) is that a careful combination of both positive and
>negative reinforcers would be the most efficient, but I will prefer to
>err on the side of positive (being more fun for me and my dog and not
>into trying for 200 scores). I also think that all training has to be
>tailored for the dog and for its owner. My Silkys are vastly different
>in temperament and pain tolerance than Joe's Retrievers. They respond
>differently to pain as a stimulus. It is fascinating...
I'm going to jump in on this an add a little story.
We have in for training right now a very dominant(Amish bred)
neutered 18 mos old male Rottie. This dog prior to coming
here has gotten into trouble with dogs. His owners(3) all female
cannot seem to get his attention. He responded to me almost
immediately, with virtually very little lead corrections to speak of.
When in his run, he has tried to charge dogs walking by.
He will not do this in my presence but will for my female
employees. They corrected him to no avail. My suggestion was
to walk by and have him sit for a treat.They did this a few times.
Then I had them do it before taking another dog out, with another
dog and walking back. Guess what? No more charging in run
when dogs walk by.
Bob Maida
Dog Training/Problem Solving
Manassas,Va
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>a number of trainers who use clickers or other forms of operant
>conditioning/ positive reinforcement (using praise instead of food, for
>instance) -- Patty Ruzzo,Dawn Jecs, etc.
I don't think they use only positives though, FWIW. I also think that it
can be unfair for someone new to obedience and/or dog training to hear
that so and so never uses corrections and that thus no corrections are
ever needed for dog training. A correction in my mind may be different
than for someone else (you may turn your back, I may say no, someone else
may use a collar twist, a toe pinch etc etc), but they are still there
somewhere in any effective training program. But that's an aside. :)
>Is your bet open to obedience, too? If so, what are the criteria? My
Obedience ain't like field trials. It's not even like hunting tests. :) No
matter how much a dog loves field work, if he's not force fetched you are
going to run into problems. And those problems tend to be about 100 yards
from where you are standing, and there's a pond filled with sticks between
you and the dog and it's sleeting and your feet are already wet and there
is no way in hell that you can march out there and tell Sl.., err, I mean
your dog that if he doesn't get to work he's history. That's why so many
field people use electronic collars. The distances involved need something
to transcend them.
I know plenty of dogs who are not the traditional obedience breeds, who
will fetch a dumbbell in the ring, when they are told to. And yes, you
could use just operant conditioning/positive reinforcement to do this. But
out in the field where that dumbell could be a live crippled duck, one who
doesn't want to be carried in by a dog, I don't think that anything less
than a forcefetch will work. Hey Joe, do you know anyone who is running in
trials without a force fetched dog?
Ann, Twzl & Sligo (going out for the first time in '97 this weekend)
Elizabeth B. Naime
> Are they trialing dogs in Utility now? And, did they use anything in
> addition to the clicker?
I don't know.
> I am not sure how a clicker would work with articles. I would be curious
> to know how it is used with them. You are not supposed to be telling the
> dog anythign till he leaves the pile and is back near you, so where would
> you click? And how does the dog know he is right?
First, I'd throw out the idea that I'm "not supposed to be telling the
dog anything...". This is training; I don't wait for a completed
behavior chain before I tell the dog he's right or wrong. The
"finished product" will look like this, but if we trained using only
AKC trial regulations, you'd never correct or position your dog, I'd
never give mine food, and neither one of us would reinforce anything
short of a completed chain. And neither one of us would get anywhere!
There are probably lots of ways to train articles with a clicker. I
would not approach articles until I had a dog who would confidently
retrieve both metal and leather articles placed singly while the dog
isn't watching. Given this, a dog who knows the CLICK means "right"
and preferably a dog who also knows a signal meaning "not that, try
again", I would proceed this way:
I would scent all my articles, place them in a loose pile, and send
the dog. I would probably click when the dog picked up an article
(they are all correct, you see), though at this stage I might wait for
a correct delivery. I would not reinforce attempts to pick up more
than one article and I would not reinforce dropping one article and
picking up the next. I would also watch that the dog IS examining the
pile, which I believe most will do naturally since it is a new and
different set-up; but if my dog seemed to rush in, grab the first
article and rush back, I might back up and click for sniffing and
examining the pile to strengthen that behavior which will be needed
later.
Once I have a retrieve of one article from 5 scented articles, I would
place 4 scented and one unscented article and try again. I would
click when the dog picked up a correct article, and refuse to accept
delivery of an incorrect article. Once we were correctly working 4/5,
I would place 2 unscented articles and 3 scented. I would proceed in
this fashion until I was down to 1/5, add the finish and reinforce
only that, then add the pivot to the begining of the chain. And, I
will continue to go back and separately work on any part of the chain
that seems to need work, in training.
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 5 Mar 1997 08:24:47 -0500, alg...@panix.com
(Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together) wrote:
[...]
> But out in the field where that dumbell could be a live crippled duck, one who
>doesn't want to be carried in by a dog, I don't think that anything less
>than a forcefetch will work. Hey Joe, do you know anyone who is running in
>trials without a force fetched dog?
There are still a few (a very few) individuals who cling to the myth
that force training is not really necessary to WIN. But they've NEVER
won anything, so I no longer know what it is they're trying to prove.
It's not necessary (but still is desirable) for a hunting dog, but it
IS necessary for a dog who COMPETES in trials and hunt tests.
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 4 Mar 1997 21:44:11 GMT,
etes...@law.vanderbilt.edu (Elizabeth) wrote:
>In article <331e062d...@news1.i1.net>, Dogman says...
>
>>Carol, I have had a standing offer of a $1000 prize to any trainer who
>>can train a field trial dog using ONLY positive methods and who gets
>>even a finish at an OPEN or UNLIMITED field trial. I've been making
>>this offer for years now and no one has ever even tried to collect on
>>it. In fact, I'm even thinking of raising the amount to $10,000.
>Joe -- Earlier in your post you also mentioned that you don't think
>clicker-trained dogs can be competitive in obedience.
That's not what I said, Elizabeth. I said that I was not aware of
ANYONE who had ever won an obedience CHAMPIONSHIP using ONLY clicker
training.
>There are actually
>a number of trainers who use clickers or other forms of operant
>conditioning/ positive reinforcement (using praise instead of food, for
>instance) -- Patty Ruzzo,Dawn Jecs, etc.
That doesn't surprise me, clicker training is a very good method.
However, I wonder if any of these trainers use ONLY clicker training?
Hmnnn?
>Is your bet open to obedience, too? If so, what are the criteria? My
>dog Emma and I would like to try to take you up on that. She's just now
>ready for Novice, so it will be a while. But it will give us another
>goal.
Nope. My bet is for what it says: a win in OPEN or UNLIMITED field
trials.
>BTW, she's an All-American, so her titles will be UKC ones. What title
>would you like us to achieve with our clicker training?
I'd like you to receive a FC using ONLY clicker training. My guess is
that his will never happen, Elizabeth. But you're willing to give it
a go. The offer is open to ANYONE. Heh-heh-heh.
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
In <19970305173...@ladder01.news.aol.com> webb...@aol.com (WebbWeave) writes:
>Clickers -- this brings up a question I had a while back. If you've
>trained your dog with a clicker, what do you do about judges who use one
>of those clicking things to deduct points? Can you ask them not to?
You should proof your dog. It's the same thing as being next to the Open
ring and you're leaving your dog for a recall, and the whole ring next
door says Fido DOWN. :) If your dog lies down just because someone else
says the word, it's time to proof some more. And if your dog thinks that
any clicker is his clicker...I don't know. I know that lots of people
think clickers are wonderful things and all but I'd rather talk to my dog.
My voice has much more information than a click does, it's always with me,
it's legal in the ring, and I don't sound like anyone else. Also a
clicker can't discuss bumpers with Sligo when we're going from the stand
to the heel free or from the measuring to the set up for heeling.
Ann, Twzl & Sligo
Lisa Ochoa
qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>On a cold day in Hell, 28 Feb 1997 14:05:30 GMT, Milton Crandall
><CRAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>I've read about both the Koehler method and the "Click and treat" method,
>>which seem about as oppisite as can be. Can click and treat be as
>>effective in the long run as Koehler? I am trying to decide which method
>>to start my 6 mo old weimeraner on.
>>
>>Milton Crandall
>
>
>Milton, it all depends on YOU. No, click and treat will not get the
>job done "in the long run." But some people run farther than others,
>eh? So, again, it depends upon how far you want to go, and in what
>areas of obedience you want to explore.
Actually, I've used both methods (and several in-between), and had good
results with both. I think that the method you use should be the one that
best fits the dog you're working with.
For example, I have at home two dogs who are reasonable examples of the
opposite ends of the temperament spectrum. I trained Archie pretty much
by Koehler (he laughed in my face at the "kinder, gentler" methods). On
the other hand, Nell was so timid, soft, and insecure, that merely putting
a leash on her would cause her to collapse in a quivering heap. I used a
clicker to train her, and the results have been spectacular, to say the
least (as an aside, one of the best compliments you can receive on your
rescues is when people say, "That's not the same dog you had six months
ago, is it?"). Obviously, trying to teach these two dogs anything using
the same method would have been a major error, simply because their
temperaments and perceptions are poles apart.
When I'm starting out with a new dog, I generally go with the most positive
means at my disposal, and don't get more forceful unless I have to, simply
because I think it's more fun for both parties to train from a positive
viewpoint. But the end result is that my method is a little different for
each dog I work with, pretty much designed around the needs and response of
that individual dog.
>
>If you're sense of timing is not very, very good, and your knowledge
>of dog behavior and personalities is poor, I'd go with the clicker
>training. Koehler methods require a better understanding of your dog
>and dog behavior, in general, than other methods. Koehler methods
>CAN, indeed, be harsh and ineffective in the wrong hands.
This is *very* good advice.
>
>Learn about them BOTH and then make up your own mind which method is
>best for YOU and YOUR dog, and what you're trying to accomplish. You
>may even wish to borrow from BOTH methods, eh? Try both ways with
>your dog and find out for yourself which way or ways are better for
>YOU and YOUR dog.
>Dogman
I like this advice too (primarily because it pretty much says the same
thing as I did above =) )
Have fun with your puppy.
--
Lisa Ochoa, Proprietor, Ochoa Petting Zoo- Home of
Archie (6yo Doberman/Torpedo); Nell, CGC (Gorgeous 5yo
Lady Whippet); Oliver, CGC, FDCH (TMWDITW -- 5yo Border
Collie); Ripley, CGC (BC Wonder Pup); and Haley Bell the
Beeyouteefull BLT (Black Lab 'Triever) l-o...@uiuc.edu
"Do not disturb. Already disturbed."
Amy Hendrix
WebbWeave (webb...@aol.com) wrote:
: Clickers -- this brings up a question I had a while back. If you've
: trained your dog with a clicker, what do you do about judges who use one
: of those clicking things to deduct points? Can you ask them not to?
A lot of people seem to worry about this when they first start out,
but all I can say is that it doesn't turn out to be a problem. The
click sounds very different, it isn't coming from the handler's
direction, and by the time you get into the ring the dog knows from
the context that it isn't a real clicking kind of moment, or at least
that's my guess.
Elizabeth B. Naime
> I suspect if a dog ever gets an OTCh with purely positive training,
> it'll be a "work is everything to me" Border Collie - but one that
> isn't as bright as the normal BC (because the high intelligence makes
> them a little too, um... "creative" in obedience).
Actually, the OTCh rewards brilliance, not consistency. Think about
it -- NQs don't count against you, but you have to place (not just
qualify) in a certain number of Open and Utility trials, right? Put
very simply 'cause I haven't got my Regulations handy and I don't
expect it to be a goal of mine anytime soon. So, a really brilliant
dog who excells even half the time, while NQing brilliantly and
creatively the other half of the time, might get the OTCh faster than
a consistently good but not great performer who qualifies every time
but does not place first or second every time. A bit convoluted but
you do see what I mean?
The obedience rankings that I know of (the Whitehead, Front & Finish,
and Delaney sytems) also don't count anything off for nonqualifying
runs, do they? So if you wanted to look like Hot Stuff, you could
intentionally NQ (through handler error, say) if your dog was going to
qualify with a less-than-acceptable score. Although one of the
systems does try to award consistency more. Just an aside!
WebbWeave
Clickers -- this brings up a question I had a while back. If you've
trained your dog with a clicker, what do you do about judges who use one
of those clicking things to deduct points? Can you ask them not to?
means bad.
Jane Webb
Muddle and the Moonster
Thomas MacClanahan
In article <5fkeuk$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Lisa Ochoa <l-o...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>>
>>If you're sense of timing is not very, very good, and your knowledge
>>of dog behavior and personalities is poor, I'd go with the clicker
>>training. Koehler methods require a better understanding of your dog
>>and dog behavior, in general, than other methods. Koehler methods
>>CAN, indeed, be harsh and ineffective in the wrong hands.
>
>This is *very* good advice.
>
>>
>>Learn about them BOTH and then make up your own mind which method is
>>best for YOU and YOUR dog, and what you're trying to accomplish. You
>>may even wish to borrow from BOTH methods, eh? Try both ways with
>>your dog and find out for yourself which way or ways are better for
>>YOU and YOUR dog.
>
>>Dogman
>
>I like this advice too (primarily because it pretty much says the same
>thing as I did above =) )
>
You mean someone else actually agrees with Dogman? Dang, now he's gonna get a
big head.
But then if you disagree, and believe that you can teach a field dog without
force fetching, all you need to do is go to a local hunt test and watch the water
marks for the junior. Watch all the force fetched dogs come out of that green
slimy water with that dead duck in their mouths. Watch them hold on to it all
the way back to the handler. Even if they stop to shake off the water watch them
hold onto that bird. Then watch the non-forced dog come out of the water. Invariably
they will stop, drop the bird and shake off the water. And in that instant the adrenalien
rush the dog had for retrieving that bird is gone. In the majority of cases, the dog
then will decide that this bird is now very yucky as it is slimy and wet and stinky and
will balk at picking it back up. And there is nothing so pathetic to watch as an owner
whose dog had done exceptional marking and shown good courage and tenacity in going out
to the bird, now reduced to standing at the line begging their dog to pick that bird back
up. (For hunt tests and trials, the dog must return the bird to the owner's hand) It will
make a believer out of you real quick.
The fetch command for field retrievers is in many cases the second most obligatory command
the dog will learn, second only to the leave it command implied on the sight/scent of a snake.
The fetch command is a multifaceted directive to the dog. The dog is to search and
retrieve something formost. When it picks up and holds the object, it is only to use as much
force as is required to firmly hold and restrain that object. Live birds are to be retrieved
live. Fighting, wounded geese are to be retrieved alive despite wildly flapping wings or
snapping beaks. Dead pheasant are to be retrieved without teeth marks or torn skin. And in
all cases, the object is to be held until the owner/handler tells the dog to release the
object. In a good forced dog, you will not be able to remove the object from the dog's mouth
without giving it the release command. You will not dislodge it with a stick or tree limb
knocking against the object. Nor will the struggling goose free itself. And, should the
unthinkable happen in that the object is dropped, then there is nothing more important than
picking that object back up. The coming back to the owner with an empty mouth is unthinkable.
And in some tests you may see this, when a dog can not find the bird, on the way in (s)he will
stop and pick up a stick or paper so as to not come in empty mouthed.
Tom
Mojo'sMom
I dropped out of Koehler with Luke. I hated it. But after reading
Koeheler again, and following this thread, I begin to realize that
often his methods are misinterpeted and taught incorrectly. The
trainer I dropped did some things I thought excessively forceful, and
some things for no other purposed than to demonstrate a dog's
ability to figure out things.
Just because someone says they teach Koehler, doesnt mean they're
necessarily doing it right, Id say.
Terri
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>First, I'd throw out the idea that I'm "not supposed to be telling the
>dog anything...". This is training; I don't wait for a completed
>behavior chain before I tell the dog he's right or wrong. The
No. But I was referring to telling the dog he's right or wrong while he's
still right at the pile. I don't tell him anything till he's comitted to
an article and coming back to me. But for this to work, it does help to
use a tie down mat. :)
>There are probably lots of ways to train articles with a clicker. I
>would not approach articles until I had a dog who would confidently
My question then is, have you taught a dog to do articles this way, or is
this supposition? Which way have you taught a dog articles? I'm not being
a smart ass, I'm curious.
>different set-up; but if my dog seemed to rush in, grab the first
>article and rush back, I might back up and click for sniffing and
I think that most force fetched dogs will do this, especially if they've
been doing pile work with bumpers.
>Once I have a retrieve of one article from 5 scented articles, I would
>place 4 scented and one unscented article and try again. I would
>click when the dog picked up a correct article, and refuse to accept
>delivery of an incorrect article. Once we were correctly working 4/5,
>I would place 2 unscented articles and 3 scented. I would proceed in
>this fashion until I was down to 1/5, add the finish and reinforce
>only that, then add the pivot to the begining of the chain. And, I
>will continue to go back and separately work on any part of the chain
>that seems to need work, in training.
Maybe. Have you done this though?
OK, it's old fashioned and not glitzy, but I used a tie down mat to teach
Sligo. It took about three days for the lightbulb to go on for him to
understand that the untied article was the correct one as that was the one
that smelled like me. It didn't cause him any angst, other than the time
he wanted to fetch the entire mat back to me, and he picked it up right
away. So I am trying to understand why you would go with the other method
which you described...it sounds like it would take longer. Is it that non
retrievers will do it more easily than retrievers?
Elizabeth B. Naime
In article <5fjs6v$m...@panix.com>, alg...@panix.com (Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together) writes:
> In <5fi53b$n...@news.vanderbilt.edu> etes...@law.vanderbilt.edu (Elizabeth) writes:
>
>>conditioning/ positive reinforcement (using praise instead of food, for
>>instance) -- Patty Ruzzo,Dawn Jecs, etc.
>
> can be unfair for someone new to obedience and/or dog training to hear
> that so and so never uses corrections and that thus no corrections are
> ever needed for dog training. A correction in my mind may be different
This would probably be a good time to pot out that "clicker training"
does not mean "training with no corrections" either. Loosely it's
operant conditioterm which also describes Koe's actual results and
methods, though not his rationale for them) with an emphasis on
positive reinforcement and on minimizing the use of aversives; more
specifically "click and treat" is a training method described by Karen
Pryor and Gary Wilkes, both of whom are willing to use aversives under
some circumstances.
Because cliker trainig does not require the trainer to impose
discomfort or pain on a dog who hasn't a clue what's wanted, it is
very attractive to those of us who were never comfortable with that
requirement of negative reinforcement. I think only time will tell
how much can be done with NO physical aversivesvery few people have
actually tried to do competitive obedience this way, and almost no
field trainers. But "clicker training" does not equal "training with
no corrections".
> Obedience ain't like field trials. It's not even like hunting tests. :) No
> matter how much a dog loves field work, if he's not force fetched you are
> going to run into problems. And those problems tend to be about 100
yards
Are you saying thaif he IS force-fetched, you are NOT going to run
into problems?
DUSIC
I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:35:13 GMT, Thomas
MacClanahan <mac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>You mean someone else actually agrees with Dogman? Dang, now he's gonna get a
>big head.
Tom, normally I get terrified when certain people around here agree
with me and immediately begin to reconsider my position! Not so,
with Lisa.
PS: And I wear a size 7 7/8 hat. Heh-heh-heh.
--
Dogman
qbt...@v1.arg
E-mail address rot13 encoded to foil advertising spam
Joey "Dogs" Vaffanculo Contract Locating and Communication Company
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
NEW! NEW! See a rare photograph of Joey!
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 6 Mar 1997 02:33:05 GMT, du...@aol.com (DUSIC)
wrote:
>I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
>about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
>just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
Dusic, if you think that THIS is an argument, you obviously haven't
been around here for very long! Heh-heh-heh.
This is a veritable LOVE FEAST compared to what normally goes on!
Hey, stick around. Maybe you'll learn something, eh?
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 5 Mar 97 20:47:49 CST,
els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Elizabeth B. Naime) wrote:
>> Obedience ain't like field trials. It's not even like hunting tests. :) No
>> matter how much a dog loves field work, if he's not force fetched you are
>> going to run into problems. And those problems tend to be about 100
>yards
>
>Are you saying thaif he IS force-fetched, you are NOT going to run
>into problems?
That's right, Elizabeth, what Tom is saying is that if the dog is
properly force-fetched, the dog will NEVER have a problem with the
"fetching" part of the retrieve.
That is, he WILL go get it and he WILL pick it up and he WILL bring it
back and he WILL NOT drop it until you ask him to "release" it into
your hand. Period.
bob...@aol.com
>I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
>about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
>just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
What commotion?? I think there has been some great exchange
of info here. If you cannot see it, then this group is over your head.
Bob Maida
Dog training/Problem counseling since 1969
Manassas,Va
Elizabeth B. Naime
In article <33214499...@news1.i1.net>, qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) writes:
> That's right, Elizabeth, what Tom is saying is that if the dog is
> properly force-fetched, the dog will NEVER have a problem with the
> "fetching" part of the retrieve.
So, why do dogs ever fail?
Lisa Ochoa
may...@mosquito.com (Ruth Mays) wrote:
>On 5 Mar 1997 18:44:36 GMT, Lisa Ochoa <l-o...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>><CRAN...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>>
>>>If you're sense of timing is not very, very good, and your knowledge
>>>of dog behavior and personalities is poor, I'd go with the clicker
>>>training. Koehler methods require a better understanding of your dog
>>>and dog behavior, in general, than other methods. Koehler methods
>>>CAN, indeed, be harsh and ineffective in the wrong hands.
>disagree with the statement about timing, though. If your timing is
>not very good, clicker training simply will not work because you will
>constantly be rewarding the dog for the wrong thing. To work, the
>click must come immediately after the desired behavior or even during
>it. Wait too long and you are telling the dog that something else is
>the right behavior. No method is right for every dog, and most people
>end up using a combination of methods anyway. As long as everybody is
>still having fun (and I do mean everybody!), whatever you are doing is
>right.
>Ruth Mays
>may...@mosquito.com
In a sense, Ruth, you're correct. However, very few people are *born*
with good timing; for most of us, developing it takes practice. If I were
starting out today as a novice handler, I'd definitely want to pick the
method that doesn't punish the dog for my errors. And it's *much* easier
to correct misimpressions you may have created by bad timing of the clicker.
While the behavior is being shaped, the dog only needs a few unreinforced
times to quit offering the behavior. This is why you can start a dog with
"sit" and as soon as he's sitting any old place at the command, you can
shape him further into a straight sit, and then further into a straight
sit right in front of you. You're just upping the criteria, and dogs pick
up on this pretty quickly ("hmm, sitting off to her right doesn't get it
anymore, but if I sit right up in front of her, I get my click"). And it
*is* quick. I shaped Nell to sit directly in front of me with her ears up
and tail wagging to the cue "front" in less than two days.
I think this is what Joe had in mind above.
Ruth Mays
Elizabeth B. Naime
> I guess I would be afraid that the dog might think that the click meant
> that he was ok, when in fact he was still on the pile, rather tentative
> about the correct article. Obviously, if you are very good at reading the
> dog this wouldn't be an issue. But I know from watching people using
> successive approximation as a training tool, that too often when the dog
> shows even a tiny inkling of understanding something we rush in and reward
> or help. WHich would be fine, but I think it might be confusing in
> articles...rewarding the wrong thing or the wrong stage.
With a confident dog or with all scented articles, I'd click picking
it up -- but if I had your Golden, I would click examining the
articles because the way you've described him, he'd be more likely to
err in the direction of grabbing SOMETHING and retrieving it than in
the direction of not knowing what to grab.
However, while being good at reading the dog is a definite time-saver,
it is *always* possible to change the criteria. So the dog clicked for
sniffing the article will sniff articles -- so far so good -- if he
stops picking up articles the criteria should shift to picking up the
article. The trainer just stops clicking sniffing, and clicks the
pickup. (If the dog is really entrenched in sniffing and not picking
up, the trainer will have to retrace the steps s/he took in training
the retrieve in the first place.)
For a dog who knows how to retrieve, examining articles is the right
thing -- it's one of the key differences between the retrieve he knows
and the variation we are trying to teach.
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>So, why do dogs ever fail?
Well, in lower level hunting tests, odds are that a well force fetched dog
wouldn't fail. :) It's a pass fail thing and not competitive.
However, at the upper levels of hunting tests and in field trials, he
could fail for lack of speed, bad marking ability, no desire to hunt,
disturbing too much cover when he does hunt, farting around on the bank
instead of jumping right in, etc etc.
Having said that, a properly force fetched dog who understands simple
marks and who wants to work with his owner should be able to handle lower
level hunting tests. And a dog who has not been force fetched will
probably flunk.
Carol Dunster
On 6 Mar 1997 02:33:05 GMT, du...@aol.com (DUSIC) wrote:
>I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
>about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
>just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
Be aware that the arguments happen all the time and that this batch is
friendly and educational. I have learned a good deal from it and
refined my approach to my next training problem. (There may be nasty
posts by some people that I have filtered out of the conversation,
because their posts are just nasty for no reason.) This has been a
great thread, with tons of information. Please don't confuse a lively
debate with a bit of bantering with real arguments! :-)
This has strengthened my feeling that clicker training is a very good
method for some people with some dogs and some goals to use. It seems
to be useful to add to a training "toolbox" for certain situations. It
will probably be the technique of choice for many, particularly with a
soft, sensitive dog or a beginning trainer that doesn't have good
timing or skills and doesn't want to chance upsetting their dog.
Clicker training may not be too useful when the dog has to work under
really adverse conditions or with really strong distractions. There
are times when a dog *must* perform and the Koehler method, properly
applied has a place there. Some trainers with tougher dogs and good
timing might have really good luck with this method (or a combination)
to get good results. (Reminds me, Joe, what my mother used to say bout
training Labs - the 2" by 4" is to get the dogs attention... :-)
(That's a joke people!)
So training methods are very individual to each person and each dog
and the final test is whether it gets the job done in a humane way.
(It can be humane to use an e-collar, if you use it right, just like
most things.)
Carol
--
Patchwork English Setters and
Carwyn Silky Terriers
http://www.prodogs.com/dbn/carwyn/index.htm
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>articles because the way you've described him, he'd be more likely to
>err in the direction of grabbing SOMETHING and retrieving it than in
>the direction of not knowing what to grab.
Yep. Like, someone is at the door, I don't see any toys, so I will bring
part of the couch to the door to greet them with. :)
>For a dog who knows how to retrieve, examining articles is the right
>thing -- it's one of the key differences between the retrieve he knows
>and the variation we are trying to teach.
Got it. With Sligo, I started him as a baby, letting him carry an aluminum
caribeener (sp?) around. He always liked to carry things, so I taught him
that metal was also a good thing to carry. (note: do not drop keys around
this dog!!). Somone I know taught her Golden articles by playing hide and
seek with them from an early age, teaching her to find the one that
smelled like her hands...this would only work on a really driven to
retrieve dog who thought this was a cool game. For this dog and for Sligo,
the reward of being able to grab an article to fetch is enough to make it
interesting. WIth my older dog, there is nothing in this world good enough
to make her interested in metal, enough to put it in her mouth.
Lisa Ochoa
qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) wrote:
>On a cold day in Hell, Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:35:13 GMT, Thomas
>MacClanahan <mac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>You mean someone else actually agrees with Dogman? Dang, now he's gonna get a
>>big head.
>
>Tom, normally I get terrified when certain people around here agree
>with me and immediately begin to reconsider my position! Not so,
>with Lisa.
>
WOW. And I don't even train field dogs =)
(Gotta a *real* nice Lab pup, though. You'd like her a lot.)
Mojo'sMom
DUSIC wrote:
>
> I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
> about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
> just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
DUSIC,
This isnt a commotion here at all. This is a good spirited ,healthy
and educational debate. Most here prefer this to the real wars that
can occur! Truly, no need to apologize! It's interesting!
And do stay around, but get thicker skin, cause if you think this is
a war, you're in for a big surprise when you see a bonifide flame war!
Cheers,
Terri
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 6 Mar 1997 21:43:29 GMT, Lisa Ochoa
<l-o...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
[...]
>WOW. And I don't even train field dogs =)
>
>(Gotta a *real* nice Lab pup, though. You'd like her a lot.)
Lisa, I've yet to meet the dog I don't like. It's just many of their
owners that I have the big problems with! Heh-heh-heh.
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 6 Mar 1997 20:35:29 GMT, dob...@aol.com
(DobeFan) wrote:
>Hey Joe, there is a quote on a Dobe calendar:
>"With a Golden, you pattern train. With a Lab, you train. With a
>Doberman, you negotiate." Attributed to Sharon Hildebrand.
>Anybody who's trained a Dobe knows they always come up with a 'more
>interesting' way to do everything!
>Mary Alice
Mary...try training a Chesapeake Bay retriever
sometime....heh-heh-heh.
DobeFan
Mojo'sMom
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together wrote:
>
> Got it. With Sligo, I started him as a baby, letting him carry an aluminum
> caribeener (sp?) around. He always liked to carry things, so I taught him
> that metal was also a good thing to carry. (note: do not drop keys around
> this dog!!).
What a great dog he would be for the Canine Aid Independece Program!!
Terri
Elizabeth
In article <5fhorv$i...@panix.com>, alg...@panix.com says...
>Nope. FWIW I doubt that anyone could get through Open in a timely manner
>with just a play retrieve. Inducive ok, play no.
Well, my beagle Greta hasn't gotten her CDX, but it's not b/c of her
retrieve (which is a complete play retrieve, but very reliable). She has
never NQ'd on the retrieve, but due to early mistakes I made in her
training, she now has a stay problem. Oh, well.
But it's not her retrieve that's stopping her!! She's SUPER fast, very
happy, and never refuses to retrieve.
Elizabeth
CAROL WHITNEY
> That's not what I said, Elizabeth. I said that I was not aware of
> ANYONE who had ever won an obedience CHAMPIONSHIP using ONLY clicker
> training.
Heh; I'm watching all this. I don't think there IS such a thing as
training using ONLY the clicker method. That's because we're always
training our dogs, whether we realize it or not. Requires a LOT of
(often very self-conscious) thinking - and observation - doesn't it!
Personally, I have never trained retrieving, nor worked with field
dogs; I've worked ONLY with companion dogs, so I can't comment on
the rest of it <g>.
-- Carol Thu 06-Mar-97 22:17
---
* RoseReader 2.52B P001545 Entered at [BB&C]
CAROL WHITNEY
Is somebody else using your account, dusic? You seem to know enough
to type in mixed case, but I saw another post in all-caps,
supposedly from you. If more than one is using your account, you
might sign your posts <g>.
> From: du...@aol.com (DUSIC)
> Message-ID: <19970306023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> References: <5fkdkj$g...@panix.com>
> I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
WHY? You call this commotion? I certainly don't. There have been
many excellent posts in this thread, and, if there's only one of you
using this account, you can learn a great deal from reading them.
> about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
> just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
No. For several reasons. First, each person needs training methods
that suit that person, because although many methods are similar,
some may need adaptation to work for a particular person. Think,
for instance, of age, size, strength, and temperament, of the
person, as well as of the dog. Second, dogs vary in what they
respond to, and the training methods, still with similarities, need
also to be adapted to the size, strength, health, age, and
temperament of the dog.
Koehler's methods were very consistent. Consistency is a prime
requirement when training a dog. As several posters have pointed
out, it's perfectly possible to combine methods devised by numbers
of different trainers, and still develop a really consistent
training program for a particular person and a particular dog.
This thread has been well-conducted, as far as I have seen. I may
have missed a number of posts in it.
The ultimate in understanding is to realized that whatever a person
does in (sometimes, only near) a dog's presence is an element in the
training of that dog. A conscientious dog-owner/trainer has thought
out, very carefully, the ENTIRE experience of the dog, and responds
to the dog's needs, combined with the person's needs, while training
the dog (meaning, in the dog's presence!).
Keep reading this thread, and think about the different posts, and
you will learn a lot - a lot of very helpful stuff.
-- Carol Thu 06-Mar-97 22:11
CAROL WHITNEY
> This is a veritable LOVE FEAST compared to what normally goes on!
>
> Hey, stick around. Maybe you'll learn something, eh?
Took me a whole giant post to say what Dogman Joe can say in two
sentences <g>.
-- Carol Thu 06-Mar-97 22:26
Diane Blackman
DUSIC wrote:
: I am really sorry for causing so much commotion. I just wanted to find out
: about this method but it appears it caused some arguments. Can't we all
: just get along? Live and let live, train and let train?
I think the only way to really communicate is to have this kind of back
and forth discussion. Lots of casual language has been further defined
and described in this discussion. Seems like the ideal for a discussion
group. No name calling, lots of explanation.
--
Diane Blackman
The polite dog gains freedom for it is welcome everywhere. It plays with
abandon or waits with quiet reserve as with any respected citizen.
http://www.dog-play.com/cgc.html
Lisa Ochoa
alg...@panix.com (Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together) wrote:
>In <1997Mar...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Elizabeth B. Naime) writes:
>
>>shaped retrieve? There's no reason why articles should present any
>
>Nope. FWIW I doubt that anyone could get through Open in a timely manner
>with just a play retrieve. Inducive ok, play no.
Ann, I'm curious. Would you please define "play retrieve" for me? I
ask this because I've never used a "forced retrieve" (at least as I've
seen you explain it), but I have four retrieving maniacs who will stop
at nothing to bring the ball (or frisbee, or stick, etc.) back to me.
Grant you, Nellie wouldn't retrieve if her life depended on it, but then
I've never asked her to because in her case I don't care whether she does
or not. The two younger dogs learned that retrieving is a Good Thing from
watching and competing with Archie and Oliver and then shaped from their
natural inclination, Oliver was gradually shaped with positive motivation
(he'll retrieve anything I point at up to and including my tambourine),
and Archie learned to retrieve in similar fashion (a combination of playing
with his then-elders and positive motivation). WRT competition obedience,
I've taken two dogs farther than Novice, and the retrieve (formal, directed,
or articles) was in both cases the least of the difficulties I experienced.
I'm currently working Ollie on Open exercises, and he's having no problems
with the dumbbell. So I think that my retrieve training is NOT what you would
think of as a "play retrieve," is that right?
FWIW, I would never argue against the value of a forced retrieve. For
starters, I've never trained a field dog, and I have no doubt that you are
correct when you state that it's the only way to teach a dog that he MUST
bring that bird back no matter what the circumstances. And I'd bet there
are a lot of dogs out there who wouldn't be reliable retrieving any kind of
article without this method. I've never used it, but I wouldn't hesitate to
get someone to show me the right way to do so if I ever thought it necessary.
>Now...:
>>additional problem, unless the trainer is using a tie-down board which
>>might indeed be confusing to a dog who's not accustomed to learning by
>>corrections. People who are using click and treat on the mailing list
>>for that training method aren't reporting any additional difficulty
>>with articles.
>
>Are they trialing dogs in Utility now? And, did they use anything in
>addition to the clicker?
There are several trainers on that list who are trialing in Utility, but
I don't know if another method was used in conjunction with clickers, and
if so what was used. Since the list is a discussion about clicker training,
most of the posts deal solely with how a clicker was used to teach specific
things, and there's not much said about any other method.
There are a LOT of crossover dogs, though.
>
>I am not sure how a clicker would work with articles. I would be curious
>to know how it is used with them. You are not supposed to be telling the
>dog anythign till he leaves the pile and is back near you, so where would
>you click? And how does the dog know he is right?
>Ann, Twzl & Sligo
I've only taught articles to two dogs, so I am by no means any kind of expert.
I used the same technique with both dogs (an Irish setter and a Doberman).
I started out with only one article (scented), then two, then three, etc.,
of the same kind, each additional article added only after the dog would
consistently bring me the correct one. Once the dog would reliably collect
the correct article, I gradually added in the other kind(s) (my Irish setter
was trained back in the days when there were *three* types of articles in the
scent exercises). I didn't ask the dog for a formal retrieve until those steps
were completed.
Based on my (limited) clicker training experience, I think I could use a similar
technique to train articles via the clicker.
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Thu, 06 Mar 97 22:27:00 -0700,
carol....@bbc.org (CAROL WHITNEY) wrote:
>> That's not what I said, Elizabeth. I said that I was not aware of
>> ANYONE who had ever won an obedience CHAMPIONSHIP using ONLY clicker
>> training.
>
>Heh; I'm watching all this. I don't think there IS such a thing as
>training using ONLY the clicker method. That's because we're always
>training our dogs, whether we realize it or not.
[...]
True, Madam Umpire, but I think you know what I mean, eh? No fair
sticking some Koehler, etc., in there with the "clicker training," eh?
Heh-heh-heh.
Thomas MacClanahan
In article <5fmvs7$2...@panix.com>,
alg...@panix.com (Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together) wrote:
>In <1997Mar...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Elizabeth B. Naime) writes:
>
>
>Well, in lower level hunting tests, odds are that a well force fetched dog
>wouldn't fail. :) It's a pass fail thing and not competitive.
Well, yes, no and maybe! As the junior is the entry level into the hunt test
game, this is where many of the new handllers start. So you get a few dogs who
will fail for handler error. Ie. the handler must take the bird from the dog
and have it firmly in possession before touching the dog. Also, the handler
can not have any training device visable to the dog on the dogs return which
many judges translate as leashes. So a handler who touches the dog before taking
the bird or one who holds onto the leash while the dog is coming back CAN be DQ'd
for handler error.
The junior is primarily a marking test. A test to see how well the dog can mark
the fall of a bird and then go out and get it. Because of echo's or other
commotion, the dog's atteention may be distracted as the bird falls such that it
doesn't know where the bird landed. Hence it will not be able to find the bird.
Some dogs do not like water and will balk at entering the water to retrieve a bird.
Other dogs are very test wise and will take that opportunity to thumb their nose at
the handler. Others will pick up on the handlers tension and become very hesitent.
Others will see another flying bird, rabbit, mouse, squirrel, etc and become
distracted. Or, the hanlder may have just trained on pigeons and so when the dog
sees a duck, it passes on by looking for the pigeon it knows must be out there.
The reasons for failing the junior are as varied and different as you can think.
But ny far, the most consistent reason is the dog that was not forced, dropping the
bird after coming out of the water and then refusing to pick it back up.
>
>However, at the upper levels of hunting tests and in field trials, he
>could fail for lack of speed, bad marking ability, no desire to hunt,
>disturbing too much cover when he does hunt, farting around on the bank
>instead of jumping right in, etc etc.
>
Yes, in the upper levels, style has quite a bit more weight. But the senior by
definition from the AKC is to encourage the dog/handler team to continue into
the master. So a lot of tolerence on lack of style is accepted, especially in
the area of handling. Handling is where the handler of the dog is told where
the bird is, but the dog is unaware of its presence. The handler must then
direct the dog to the bird with whistle and hand signals. The blind as it
is called is the area where most of the senior dogs will dq. This is where
the dog must give up its will to the handler and blindly follow the handlers
direction. Something that is very hard for some dogs to do.
The master on the other hand is just mass confusion. If the dog and handler are
able to handle the confusion and have the marking and handling of the junior and
senior under control, they will do well in the master. But the confusion can be
very overwhelming with birds falling all around you at the most inopportune times.
It is very much a team sport with dog and handler working in tandem to overcome all
the obstacles. Both members of the team must have confidence in their partner and
faith that they can handle their individual parts.
Tom
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>What a great dog he would be for the Canine Aid Independece Program!!
Shameless brag! When he was a baby, someone met him and told me that Sligo
was wasted on me...he would have made a great assistance dog. This was a
woman who had worked closely with a guide dog program, and she liked him.
But he's mine. :) I did have someone from such a program ask about using
him as a stud dog though so maybe one day there will be Sligo babies doing
work like that.
CAROL WHITNEY
Commenting selectively on Carol Dunster's latest contribution:
> From: cdun...@Ritzville.org (Carol Dunster)
> Message-ID: <332bf648...@news.Brigadoon.com>
> References: <5fkdkj$g...@panix.com> <19970306023...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> This has strengthened my feeling that clicker training is a very good
> method for some people with some dogs and some goals to use. It seems
> to be useful to add to a training "toolbox" for certain situations. It
> will probably be the technique of choice for many, particularly with a
> soft, sensitive dog or a beginning trainer that doesn't have good
> timing or skills and doesn't want to chance upsetting their dog.
>
> Clicker training may not be too useful when the dog has to work under
> really adverse conditions or with really strong distractions. There
> are times when a dog *must* perform and the Koehler method, properly
> applied has a place there. Some trainers with tougher dogs and good
> timing might have really good luck with this method (or a combination)
> to get good results. (Reminds me, Joe, what my mother used to say bout
> training Labs - the 2" by 4" is to get the dogs attention... :-)
> (That's a joke people!)
One thing I learned after a few years (I'm still surprised at how
long it took me) was not to expect one dog or breed to have the same
traits as another dog or breed. It's essential to adapt a training
program to the individual dog (and owner/handler/trainer). No breed
should necessarily be expected to do something, reliably, that is
really contrary to its inborn traits. For instance, unless I were
to keep pet rats, and have my pups grow up with them from the age of
7 weeks on, I would NOT expect my Australian Terriers, bred as
rodent-hunters, to leave my pet rats unharmed, should I let dogs and
rats both have free run of my place while I was out. Actually, I
don't have pet rats, and probably won't, as long as I have
Australian Terriers. It's just asking too much. On the other hand,
my dogs CAN be left home even with my rather sumissive cat.
This is part of the reason people should try to learn as much as
possible before selecting a dog to be a family companion. Best to
look for a dog who will fit in with your lifestyle <g>.
Fri 07-Mar-97; 20:00 -- Carol, with Feline Prancy Wallbounce, and
-- Australian Terriers Kaliko Thunderpaws and Kwali Twinkletoes
Colin Montoya-Lewis
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together wrote:
>
> I am not sure how a clicker would work with articles. I would be curious
> to know how it is used with them. You are not supposed to be telling the
> dog anythign till he leaves the pile and is back near you, so where would
> you click? And how does the dog know he is right?
>
I apologize for stepping into the middle of a conversation I haven't
seen from the beginning, but this statement seems to reveal a
misunderstanding about clicker training (operant conditioning). Most
clicker trainers I've talked to use the clicker (and the reward it
signals) to teach/shape the behavior. Then the behavior is put on cue.
Only occassional reinforcement, with the clicker is necessary after
this. So, in competition, the clicker is no longer necessary. Rather,
the dog has already learned the task, and is responding to your
command.
-Colin
Chris Kosmakos
Lisa Ochoa (l-o...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
:
: FWIW, I would never argue against the value of a forced retrieve. For
: correct when you state that it's the only way to teach a dog that he MUST
: bring that bird back no matter what the circumstances.
Just to add another aspect to the forced retrieve - wilderness search dogs
must have an alert to tell the handler that they have found a victim. The
most common is having them return to the handler with a bringsel (stuffed
tube that hangs from their collars) in their mouth. They absolutely have
to hold the bringsel in their mouths while running over any kind of rough
terrain, and the best way to teach that is with a traditional forced
retrieve. No amount of chasing a ball will guarantee a dog that will
never drop an item from his mouth and I can't think of a way to achieve
the same results with clicker training.
Lynn K., and Java who is still protective of his left ear
--
chri...@netcom.com
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>Well, my beagle Greta hasn't gotten her CDX, but it's not b/c of her
>retrieve (which is a complete play retrieve, but very reliable). She has
>never NQ'd on the retrieve, but due to early mistakes I made in her
Never say never. :) She may hold that in store for the day she qualifies
on stays!
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>Ann, I'm curious. Would you please define "play retrieve" for me? I
A play retrieve, to me at least, is found in a dog who finds the act of
retrieving itself to be enforcing. So a 7 week old puppy who will chase
after a pigeon wing and bring it back is probably a natural retriever, and
will have a nice play retrieve. A play retrieve on its own is not going to
take you through Utility, where the dog doesn't see anything thrown for
him to then fetch. A play retrieve, and a dog who can hold a sit stay
while an exciting object is thrown may take you into Open, but I wouldn't
bet the house on an easy three trials to a title. :) As fun as fetching
may be, if the dog is distracted and he's never been told that no matter
what he has to fetch (oh he'll fetch, don't worry!), he may find something
even more reinforcing to do, like cruise the ring gates, scratch his neck,
wag his tail at you.
>with the dumbbell. So I think that my retrieve training is NOT what you would
>think of as a "play retrieve," is that right?
Nope. To me a play retrieve is a totally untrained retrieve, that is just
THERE in the dog. No training, no shaping, it's just there. Go to the
beach and watch someone with a pet dog who's fetching sticks, and droping
them at his owner's feet. That's a play retrieve. The dog wasn't taught to
hold till he is told to give, wasn't told to bring it right to the owner,
but he'll go and chase something and bring it sort of kind of back.
>There are several trainers on that list who are trialing in Utility, but
>I don't know if another method was used in conjunction with clickers, and
>if so what was used. Since the list is a discussion about clicker training,
>most of the posts deal solely with how a clicker was used to teach specific
>things, and there's not much said about any other method.
I would be very interested if someone used nothing but a clicker to get
through Utility. I am not sure if I would believe it either.
I saw a woman using a clicker totally wrong at a match last week. She was
using it on her dog to get his attention while he was sitting near her,
not in heel position, not in front, just sort of randomly near her. I
didn't get it. And I really didn't get it when she then went into the ring
and lost him. It was an agility match, and he was a fast and way out of
control dog...her body language was what you would use to encourage a slow
dog, with lots of forward leaning and grabbing his collar. I was very
surprised to not see her use the clicker to reinforce his sitting quitely
at the line and waiting to be told to go. She didn't seem to have made the
transition from using it to work on attention to using it to work on an
exercise that the dog obviously had a hard time with. If she had used it
for the sit and to be able to lead off from the dog it would have made
much more sense!
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together
>I apologize for stepping into the middle of a conversation I haven't
>seen from the beginning, but this statement seems to reveal a
>misunderstanding about clicker training (operant conditioning). Most
Nope. I understand what operant comditioning is. From Janet Lewis: "If the
occurence of an operant is followed by the presentation of a reinforcing
stimulus, then the probability of its recurrance increases. For dog
trainser, 'operant' is bet defined as a behavior tht the dog can
voluntarily offer (as opposed to a reflex)."
FWIW I believe clicker training is actually an example of a secondary
(conditioned ) reinforcer), in which the dog learns that when he hears a
click, a primary reinforcer will show up. Both secondary and primary
reinforcers can be positive or negative.
>Only occassional reinforcement, with the clicker is necessary after
>this. So, in competition, the clicker is no longer necessary. Rather,
>the dog has already learned the task, and is responding to your
>command.
I think you may have missed some steps in there, but no matter. My
question was not "what is a clicker" or "what does it mean to reinforce
succesive approximations", but the specific "how to you teach scent
articles with a clicker".
dogsnus
Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together wrote:
>
>
> >What a great dog he would be for the Canine Aid Independece Program!!
>
> Shameless brag! When he was a baby, someone met him and told me that Sligo
> was wasted on me...he would have made a great assistance dog. This was a
> woman who had worked closely with a guide dog program, and she liked him.
> But he's mine. :) I did have someone from such a program ask about using
> him as a stud dog though so maybe one day there will be Sligo babies doing
> work like that.
>
> --
will be a much reduced waiting list for AID dogs! He's a peach.
And I wouldn't be shameless, Id BRAG!!! He's a great tempered dog, and
there's no way he'd gotten these titles in just over 2 years if he
wasn't. You've got a wonderful dog, and if I were you, Id be much less
modest!! :) (I don't know about being *wasted* on you, how many can
lay claim to the *alphabet soup* on a Golden, notorious for being hyper,
at less than 2 yrs???)
Terri
PS
Truly, Im impressed with what you and Sligo have achieved in such a
short time. Keep it up!
CAROL WHITNEY
Hey, Joe,
> From: qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman)
> Message-ID: <33275ec9...@news1.i1.net>
> References: <331fac4d...@news1.i1.net> <8D37543.034A...@bbc.org>
> On a cold day in Hell, Thu, 06 Mar 97 22:27:00 -0700,
> carol....@bbc.org (CAROL WHITNEY) wrote:
>
> >> That's not what I said, Elizabeth. I said that I was not aware of
> >> ANYONE who had ever won an obedience CHAMPIONSHIP using ONLY clicker
> >> training.
> >
> >Heh; I'm watching all this. I don't think there IS such a thing as
> >training using ONLY the clicker method. That's because we're always
> >training our dogs, whether we realize it or not.
> [...]
>
> True, Madam Umpire, but I think you know what I mean, eh? No fair
> sticking some Koehler, etc., in there with the "clicker training," eh?
> Heh-heh-heh.
Why in heck not? :-)))))))))) EVERYTHING depends on the current
situation. Of course, Koehler's work continues to come down in the
"methods" of so many trainers that hardly anybody recognizes it any
more (often, including me).
Next question is, when and with which dog (and person) do you use
which approach. I find with my Australian Terriers, I have to
modify most of the standard methods, lean VERY heavily on the
positve (incredibly so, especially in the first 18 months,
approximately). These dogs, when typey, are so extremely reactive
(call it hyper if you like), that you have to get your timing down
to an enth of a second - great training for the human! You have to
break through at that instant when they're doing things exactly
right (say, with the clicker approach, though praise will do it too,
if you have that instantaneous, short, sound of praise and get the
tone just right).
These dogs are incredibly fast in all motions, so you have to hone
your observation, catch that eye at exactly the right moment, and -
darn, I CANNOT match their speed, but they help me hone it, and we
do pretty well.
Around 18 months, they begin to calm down just enough (never mind if
already neutered, as both mine are - it makes NO difference) - to
pause slightly longer at the exact training instant, and you might
have two whole seconds in which to make your communication.
Kaliko, at age 6 months, knew ALL his basic (novice type) obedience
commands, and was quite good at some of them - apart from long
stays, or stands. His tolerance for distance was short to start
with, but developed well, with SOME distractions. I got so he'd do
a down at about 20 yards on the beach in the morning (no leash), and
hold it for one minute. For a really hyper dog, that's not too bad.
This breed matures slowly; only BEGINS to calm at three years,
primes at five years, matures at seven years <g>. Everything I do
with them is short and snappy - they can be FAST to obey a command -
and fast to break! In initial training, I have to be ultra
attentive to get in that "Okay!" before the dog begins to break!
The Koehler-type of approach that works well with this breed is
allowing the dog to discover the connection between its behavior and
what results "out of the blue" (handler not responsible).
Sat 08-Mar-97; 23:20 -- Carol, with Feline Prancy Wallbounce, and
A1....@isumvs.iastate.edu
In article <5fs7di$d...@panix.com>,
alg...@panix.com (Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together) writes:
>In <5fpfa9$g...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Lisa Ochoa <l-o...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>>Ann, I'm curious. Would you please define "play retrieve" for me? I
>
>A play retrieve, to me at least, is found in a dog who finds the act of
>retrieving itself to be enforcing.
>what he has to fetch (oh he'll fetch, don't worry!), he may find something
>even more reinforcing to do, like cruise the ring gates, scratch his neck,
>wag his tail at you.
Or fetch the tennis ball instead of the dumbbell, 'cause tennis
balls are FUNFUNFUN and the db is WORKWORKWORK. Sam caught me out
on that one just recently. He's never *refused* a retrieve, but
that doesn't mean I get back what I threw out!
Mary & the Ames (Iowa, USA) National Zoo:
Raise a Fund; ANZ Sam-I-Am; ANZ Noah Doll, CGC, OFA Good;
ANZ Babylon Ranger; kitties from h*ll;
finches; fish; Guinea pigs (a1....@isumvs.iastate.edu)
Elizabeth B. Naime
In article <3321574f...@blanca.lavaca.com>, may...@mosquito.com (Ruth Mays) writes:
> Actually, -any- method can be ineffective in the wrong hands. I
> disagree with the statement about timing, though. If your timing is
> not very good, clicker training simply will not work because you will
> constantly be rewarding the dog for the wrong thing. To work, the
Yes, but the worst thing you will do with a mistimed positive
reinforcer is train a behavior you don't want. Ineffective, but you
can retrain (even with the same method, once your timing improves).
The dog is still willing to work for you.
The worst things that can happen with mistimed aversives are fear
reactions and agression -- the dog that fears the dumbell, the dog
that responds to a correction by attacking the handler. And I think
it is harder to retrain after the training has gone this wrong.
Certainly no method is errorproof because humans do make errors.
However, that is a possible reason to look at "worst case" situations!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth B. Naime * Email may be forwarded and/or posted
els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu *
CUR 70 / FUR 212 * * Standard Disclaimers Apply*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intreppid
Dogman
qbt...@v1.arg writes:
:There are still a few (a very few) individuals who cling to the myth
:that force training is not really necessary to WIN. But they've NEVER
:won anything, so I no longer know what it is they're trying to prove.
:It's not necessary (but still is desirable) for a hunting dog, but it
:IS necessary for a dog who COMPETES in trials and hunt tests.
As an outsider to trials and hunt tests I will take your word that force
training is necessary for a dog who COMPETES but remember, it is not the
dog who is competing, it is you (you the trainer in general). I'm not
singling you out here, dogman. The dog is only there in that artificial
environment because he happened to be acquired at a tender age by an
individual with the desire to compete.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, or force training.
As for winning, that's an area in which I am definitely not an outsider.
I've won more road and track races (running, not Nascar) than I can count,
some with a thousand people or more....And you all will see pictures of me
winning on my new web page, and I have also won 120 straight one on one
basketball games. I am a ZenMaster of winning. Nobody likes to win more
than me except maybe that other Michael in Chicago. And if I did not get
injured without health insurance, I would still be doing it and not
Changing the Muzzle...
DAVID DIKEMAN IF YOU'RE LISTENING
I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS IN VIDEO SALES
AND IF YOU PLAY ROUNDBALL, I'LL SCHOOL YOU THERE TOO, BIYACH!
And when I started off training dogs, I had that desire for perfection
like he does, that desire to impress others with what my dog could do,
that desire to show off. And I still do, but it is tempered now and I
have changed.
I'm only writing this because there are many who will dismiss me as a
fraud when they find out I have never been to a dog show or a dog trial.
Could I win a dog obedience trial if I wanted to. Absolutely. I am just
not driven to do so.
Again, I'm NOT criticizing those who are, I just want to clarify where I'm
coming from, after all, it's not everyday someone changes the muzzle of
dog training. But I'm not changing the show world or the trial world, I'm
changing the world of the average person out there who just wants a best
friend or a companion.
My problem with many prominent dog trainers is that they force methods and
ideas that may be necessary in their world, out onto the unsuspecting
public.
What I am driven to do is free the dog as much as possible from the
increasingly draconian, coercive and restrictive mentality that prevails
and is only getting worse. I read a post recently where a trainer said a
dog should NEVER be allowed off leash until it is two years old. I have
my dogs off leash almost from jump street.
I constantly read posts and books where cages are necessary for months and
years, but in my house they are never necessary. I constantly read ideas
such as don't play tug of war with your dog (Callie's favorite pastime in
the world).
The list goes on and I will not drone on here, suffice it to say that the
PATTON METHOD is more the
PATTON MENTALITY of canine liberation.
Its evolution proceeds
--
Michael T.
Callie & Chazz Fusion
!ZenGuerrillaDog! Changing the Muzzle of Dog Training
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 11 Mar 1997 11:02:06 GMT, intr...@aol.com
(Intreppid) wrote:
>Dogman
>qbt...@v1.arg writes:
>
>:There are still a few (a very few) individuals who cling to the myth
>:that force training is not really necessary to WIN. But they've NEVER
>:won anything, so I no longer know what it is they're trying to prove.
>
>:It's not necessary (but still is desirable) for a hunting dog, but it
>:IS necessary for a dog who COMPETES in trials and hunt tests.
>
>As an outsider to trials and hunt tests I will take your word that force
>training is necessary for a dog who COMPETES but remember, it is not the
>dog who is competing, it is you (you the trainer in general).
That's malarkey. It's the dog and his TRAINING that are under
judgment in a trial, not me, except vicariously. In the amateur
events, the dog's actual owner must be the handler, not the
professional trainer who actually trained the dog. The owner may have
had only a little to do with the actual training of his dog. Maybe
nothing at all.
There are no grades on the handler -- just on the dog.
Force-training is required to GUARANTY that your retriever will
retrieve anything you want it to retrieve, not just what the dog wants
to retrieve. If you've ever seen a retriever who hasn't been
force-trained come up against a wounded and pissed-off goose, you'd
understand VERY quickly why the best hunting dogs are routinely
force-trained.
> I'm not
>singling you out here, dogman.
That's okay, single me out. Better you than Charlotte "Chigger
Crouch" Celli. Geeeeez.
>The dog is only there in that artificial
>environment because he happened to be acquired at a tender age by an
>individual with the desire to compete.
It's not an artificial environment at all. The environment at a
trial or hunt test is intended to SIMULATE a day in the field with
your hunting dog. The tests are set up to simulate what a hunter or
group of hunters would encounter at the duck pond, goose pit, or
afield. Hunt tests, even better than field trials do, accomplish this
very well.
Now it's true that man doesn't absolutely need to "hunt" for his food
anymore, but the fact remains that many millions of us do. Unless you
can understand exactly what makes a hunter tick, to be outside in the
elements, close to nature, enjoying the comraderie of his fellow
hunters, swapping tales, training methods, shotgunning tips, enjoying
the work of his wet and sweet-smelling dogs, etc., it would be
impossible for you to understand field trials and hunt tests.
As far as the "competition" is concerned, there really is no
competition in hunting tests. The dogs are measured only against a
standard, not against another dog. If they measure up to what is
required of a hunting dog at a certain level, he's awarded points
toward achieving a hunting title, like JH, SH, MH.
It doesn't work that way in field trials. Here the dogs compete
against each other to determine the BEST dog at THAT trial and at THAT
time. But again, the handler is never given any points, only the dog
is ever judged directly. Now, if the dog hasn't been trained very
well, or isn't handled very well, the dog's scores will suffer, of
course. But it is only the dog and his training that is actually
being judged.
>Not that there's anything wrong with that, or force training.
Thanks!
>As for winning, that's an area in which I am definitely not an outsider.
>I've won more road and track races (running, not Nascar) than I can count,
>some with a thousand people or more....And you all will see pictures of me
>winning on my new web page, and I have also won 120 straight one on one
>basketball games. I am a ZenMaster of winning. Nobody likes to win more
>than me except maybe that other Michael in Chicago. And if I did not get
>injured without health insurance, I would still be doing it and not
>Changing the Muzzle...
I think you're mostly full of shit.
>DAVID DIKEMAN IF YOU'RE LISTENING
>I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS IN VIDEO SALES
>AND IF YOU PLAY ROUNDBALL, I'LL SCHOOL YOU THERE TOO, BIYACH!
>And when I started off training dogs,
And I bet that wasn't too long ago, if I'm not mistaken, which I
rarely am. And now you're going to write a book, eh? Heh-heh-heh.
Go ahead! I love the free market! Nothing is smarter than the free
market when it comes to identifying people who are full of shit!
Heh-heh-heh.
> I had that desire for perfection
>like he does, that desire to impress others with what my dog could do,
>that desire to show off. And I still do, but it is tempered now and I
>have changed.
You've changed into a guy who really, really appears to be full of
shit, eh? I'm not sure that would be considered progress, eh?
Field trials are really about determining the best BREEDING STOCK, and
having a little fun in the process. Nothing more, nothing less.
>I'm only writing this because there are many who will dismiss me as a
>fraud when they find out I have never been to a dog show or a dog trial.
>Could I win a dog obedience trial if I wanted to. Absolutely. I am just
>not driven to do so.
No, I don't think you even know enough to be a fraud. I just think
you're full of shit.
Someone much smarter than I am put it this way:
You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
>Again, I'm NOT criticizing those who are, I just want to clarify where I'm
>coming from, after all, it's not everyday someone changes the muzzle of
>dog training.
No, it's not, and I'm willing to wager several LARGE that YOU won't be
that guy. Whaddya say?
> But I'm not changing the show world or the trial world, I'm
>changing the world of the average person out there who just wants a best
>friend or a companion.
What you really mean is that you're going to try and prove what P.T.
Barnum said was true? That there's a sucker born every minute?
Heh-heh-heh.
>My problem with many prominent dog trainers is that they force methods and
>ideas that may be necessary in their world, out onto the unsuspecting
>public.
No, they don't. In fact I work my ass off to keep the general public
from either discovering or using most of my methods.
The "general public" was responsible for electing Bill Clinton TWICE,
eh? I'm not convinced the "general public" should even be allowed to
reproduce, never mind attempt to train dogs or raise children.
Votes should be weighed, not counted.
>What I am driven to do is free the dog as much as possible from the
>increasingly draconian, coercive and restrictive mentality that prevails
>and is only getting worse.
OIC...you're going to be to dogs what liberals are to our educational
system, eh? You're going to create the dog-world equivalents of
Beavis and Butthead, eh? Geeeez.
> I read a post recently where a trainer said a
>dog should NEVER be allowed off leash until it is two years old. I have
>my dogs off leash almost from jump street.
On this you're going to base a freakin' career? Good luck!
Heh-heh-heh.
>I constantly read posts and books where cages are necessary for months and
>years, but in my house they are never necessary. I constantly read ideas
>such as don't play tug of war with your dog (Callie's favorite pastime in
>the world).
You know, my friend, you're starting to sound more and more like
Elizabeth Marshall Thomas -- only with much much hairier legs.
>The list goes on and I will not drone on here,
It sure sounded like "droning" to me.
>suffice it to say that the
>PATTON METHOD is more the
>PATTON MENTALITY of canine liberation.
>Its evolution proceeds
I think the "Patton Method" is mostly hocus pocus and full of shit.
Of course, I really haven't heard much about what your "methods"
actually are, so I guess I'll have to wait for the book. Or maybe the
movie, eh?
"Dog Training For Dummies" Hey, there's your book title!
Have you ever worked in software sales? Heh-heh-heh.
Dogman
Crotch" Celli. Geeeeez.
Garrison St.Clair
Dogman <qbt...@v1.arg> wrote in article <332ba242...@news1.i1.net>...
<snip>
>>The "general public" was responsible for electing Bill Clinton TWICE,
>>eh? I'm not convinced the "general public" should even be allowed to
>>reproduce, never mind attempt to train dogs or raise children.
AMEN
--
CoconutWebWorks
Website & Intranet Architects and Planners
Garrison St.Clair
LTC, USA (Ret.)
"The acquisition of a flak vest serves primarily to increase the desire for
flak briefs"
Elizabeth B. Naime
In article <19970305173...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, webb...@aol.com (WebbWeave) writes:
> Clickers -- this brings up a question I had a while back. If you've
> trained your dog with a clicker, what do you do about judges who use one
> of those clicking things to deduct points? Can you ask them not to?
> Confusing for the dog -- clicker at home means good, clicker at a show
> means bad.
Not a problem. People teaching classes using clickers report that the
dogs have no difficulty whatever telling when they are being clicked
vs. when another dog is being clicked, and that is starting with the
same class-issue clickers. Apparently minor variations in clickers or
(more likely to me) handler indications such as eye contact and
smiling are sufficient to tell the dog which click is for him.
I didn't know about the clicking counters, and I'm not in the ring yet
myself. I'll remember that! Probably doing some training with the
dog in a clicker class or having a friend randomly click a counter
would give the dog the experience to ignore non-trainer clicks.
That's just a guess, based on what I've heard from people teaching
clicker classes.
Elizabeth B. Naime
Regarding "clicker trained" OTCHs, Dawn Jecs does not so far as I know
use a clicker, but I believe she does not use any physical
corrections, certainly not on articles or the retrieve. She has put
OTCH's on two dogs.
Elizabeth B. Naime
In article <5fl8h2$9...@panix.com>, alg...@panix.com (Twzl & Sligo, Happy Together) writes:
> No. But I was referring to telling the dog he's right or wrong while he's
> still right at the pile. I don't tell him anything till he's comitted to
> an article and coming back to me. But for this to work, it does help to
> use a tie down mat. :)
If the dog already has a retrieve, he should understand the pick it up
and bring it part of the excercise, so the new stuff is happening at
the pile.
>>There are probably lots of ways to train articles with a clicker. I
>>would not approach articles until I had a dog who would confidently
>
> My question then is, have you taught a dog to do articles this way, or is
> this supposition? Which way have you taught a dog articles? I'm not being
> a smart ass, I'm curious.
I'm not being a smart ass either, but ask you to note that I didn't
say "this is how I did articles" or "I did this and this". No, I have
not taught articles. I don't have the retrieving dog yet, although I
suppose I could teach articles first. I'd like to claim "articles
first" was an original idea but it's something I read in passing on a
seminar flyer. If I opt to do articles first, I'll let you know how I
do it (I'll have to break it down quite differently than in my
suggestion given before, since I won't have a retrieve of any kind
yet), but if I stick to retrieve first it might be a while before I
can report on how well it worked.
About "supposition" -- I'm not sure that's the right word. Probably
by the dictionary definition it is; It's definitely theory and not
practice. However, it almost implies to me that there is A Correct
Way to do this and I'm supposing this is what it is. Clicker training
does not have recipies, it is very hard to find sources that will say
"first do this, then do this, then...". Instead trainers are asked to
think about the behavior, figure out how it breaks down for their own
dog, figure it out for ourselves. It's the first step in training any
behavior with positive reinforcement, really.
If it makes any difference, I have watched a tape of a dog grasping
the rudiments of a named-object retrieve in less than 5 minutes. That
dog and trainer had a better grasp of "wrong", the cue the trainer
used to indicate that a different behavior should be offered, than
anyone else I've seen actually doing clicker training. That team
could probably have done articles just exactly the same way... pity
they weren't interested in formal obedience.
>>different set-up; but if my dog seemed to rush in, grab the first
>>article and rush back, I might back up and click for sniffing and
>
> I think that most force fetched dogs will do this, especially if they've
> been doing pile work with bumpers.
While reinforcing sniffing might result in a slow working dog. But if
I'm reading the regs correctly, the dog has no time limit so long as
it is "working the pile".
> OK, it's old fashioned and not glitzy, but I used a tie down mat to teach
> Sligo. It took about three days for the lightbulb to go on for him to
> understand that the untied article was the correct one as that was the one
> that smelled like me. It didn't cause him any angst, other than the time
> he wanted to fetch the entire mat back to me, and he picked it up right
> away. So I am trying to understand why you would go with the other method
> which you described...it sounds like it would take longer. Is it that non
> retrievers will do it more easily than retrievers?
Because I will not pinch the dog's ear, I will not twist the collar,
and I will not pinch toes (or apply any other physical aversives that
may be out there) for the sake of the retrieve or the articles. With
the loose scented articles, the dog has two obvious clues as to which
article will be reinforced: scent and location. I *think* I can vary
location enough to remove it as a cue. With the tie down mat the dog
is bound to notice that the correct article is the one that isn't tied
down. So he may start testing articles by picking them up and
dropping them -- have to untrain that and start again. Gary Wilkes
could have done it with Megan, I'm sure, but my dogs and I aren't that
sharp (yet). I belive I'd have a hard time extinguishing
article-tugging. Were you able to get past article-tugging with Sligo
without correcting him to the right article?