Aidan

The first part is right - intermittent schedules make the behaviour more resistant to extinction, and what that means is that if you don't reinforce 2,3,4 times in a row the behaviour won't weaken. At some point the behaviour will weaken if you stop rewarding, but that point takes longer to reach if you use an intermittent (variable) schedule. Whereas if you reward every time (1 behaviour : 1 reward) the behaviour will weaken sooner if you stop rewarding (for whatever reason), but we're not just talking once or twice! It has to be several times. So if you don't need to go long periods without rewarding, there is no penalty to pay for using a continuous schedule of reinforcement (1:1). Whether it is a cued response or offered without a cue doesn't matter. Without going into the theoretical approaches for predicting which behaviour will "win", a reward of lower value can "trump" a reward of higher value depending on the learning history, and certainly having a high rate of reinforcement stacks the deck in your favour and is a good reason to use a 1:1 ratio, unless you are going to go through periods of non-reinforcement (e.g a trial that demands many repetitions of a behaviour without reward; heeling in an obedience trial). For those interested in a more in-depth summary of the science of choice behaviour, I have written an article on choice behaviour in relation to the recall which can be found here: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2970

I wouldn't worry too much, but it's certainly something to think about addressing in your training. Recalls away from other dogs are a great thing to do. I wouldn't start while they are playing really excitedly, wait until they have settled down a bit. Another tip is for both owners to start walking away, then call your dogs as soon as they have noticed. Missing a reward every now and then isn't a bad thing either, even when they are young.

A short video, introduction to retrieving:

Yes I'm not familiar with trial rules, but I signal left, right and go out with my hands. I believe you can use voice, whistle or hand signals. eta: my boy is 10 years old and I did not formally train these signals, he seems to have picked it up through trial and error, but I would train them formally especially with a dog who is looking for a job.

That's right, she is having a blast! Getting rid of some pent-up energy, which is the reason why exercise and mental stimulation go such a long way to curbing or even stopping inappropriate behaviours such as digging - we channel that energy into more productive pursuits. You can start off in the back yard, but I would go to a reserve or field somewhere (with short grass, less likely to harbour snakes). Later on you will want some water, a river, dam or beach. If you have a gundog club nearby it's a great place to start, but that is probably not likely. The Golden Retriever club should be able to put you in touch with someone. A good recall is important, and the dog must also know how to sit in front and beside you (at first, later on sit at a distance is important). There are a lot of different ways to teach the retrieve itself (retrieving is more than just the actual retrieve, but I'll just talk about the retrieve itself here). Some people prefer a really formal style which is particularly good for reliable "obedience" style retrieves and dogs who are not natural retrievers. Others like to start off with games of fetch to build drive, then start adding the rules. An excellent example of the more formal style can be found here: http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/retrieve.html Once you get into it it all starts to make sense (eventually). Basically the dog is to stay in a sit beside you until commanded to retrieve, then run out enthusiastically, pick up the dummy, carry it with a soft mouth in a straight line back to you, then sit in front and release the dummy to your hand and return to heel. If you're just doing it for fun you will be throwing the dummy yourself, or someone else will throw it for you. You can build complexity by throwing more than one dummy and introducing directions, or throwing the dummy somewhere where it cannot be seen and guiding your dog to the general area then letting her pick up the scent herself to find it.

Have you ever thought about doing some retrieving with her? It's a lot of fun, you can start off really simple and progress as far as you like. For a retriever it really scratches the "itch" (probably the same itch which is responsible for the digging).

http://www.angelfire.com/stars3/breathe_li...tharianism.html

I agree, but others on this thread have said things along the lines of "It's not all about teaching people how to train their dog and a dog doesn't have to be owner trained to eliminate unwanted behaviours if the professional trainer is good enough." Which specifically states that the trainer can eliminate all the problems if they are "good enough" regardless of the owners skill level. I think the video quite amply demonstrates (if we are to believe that CM is "good enough") that this is not the case.

You were referencing other trainers ("they don't test the dog properly"), not me specifically. I was just wondering if successfully putting dogs back into family homes with kids and dogs seemed like reasonable proof of efficacy to you?

I put them back in family homes with kids and other dogs, but I guess that isn't a real test? Indeed. Or who is a real person.

There isn't a clear-cut law that protects the owner of a dog on-leash because plenty of dogs on-leash are unsafe and a danger to the public.

So where do you go next, Garry? The dog is now aware that you can kill him, he no longer tries to bite you (the trainer). Has he learned not to bite everyone? Has he learned not to bite children, or other dogs? What about off-leash? Does he have less motivation to try and bite others? What is it that CM isn't showing us and that you haven't explained here? I don't think a dog that has to know the handler can kill them in order for them to respect, is well suited for a pet. Most people do not want to almost kill their pet dog in order to gain respect. Many people may not even be capable of doing this. Sometimes the best option for the owner is to rehome to a working home or sadly, PTS. Let's just go with it, though, and say we have a dog whose behaviour is more than 3 standard deviations from the norm, and the owner is actually physically and mentally capable of doing this, has no children, no other pets etc I'm interested in what comes next, or if there is an opinion out there that deems these dogs to be "safe" after being choked into submission?

So where do you go next, Garry? The dog is now aware that you can kill him, he no longer tries to bite you (the trainer). Has he learned not to bite everyone? Has he learned not to bite children, or other dogs? What about off-leash? Does he have less motivation to try and bite others? What is it that CM isn't showing us and that you haven't explained here?

It does make sense, but you would be surprised how well 20 dogs get along together compared to, say, 3 or 4. It's a different dynamic, in the short term and in the longer term.

Are you referring to the episode with the cat? It's not a wonder you don't like shock collars then, he really butchered that and I'm surprised they aired it. If you saw a skilled trainer use one for that sort of problem you would be amazed at the difference.

Yes.

It is good fun The simplest way to begin is to have your daughter lay some short tracks, leaving food drops as she goes. The food is eventually faded from the track when the dog gets the idea to follow the various scents associated with a track.

I realise that, and I said "usually" which was the impression I got. As far as I can see, no-one has challenged that view here. I have tried, with and without. The difference is more then 5 minutes, in fact it can be significant periods such as days or weeks. I think that type of saving is worth it, particularly for the owner. If the dog is not really requiring it then it doesnt get a correction, but if the training is dragging on I would agree with that. The point at which I would use one and the point at which you would use one are undoubtedly different, and that is fine. Remember that we are talking about a specific example, and the suggestion I had made (earlier, back when this thread was still on-topic) was the "Look at That" game which produces extraordinarily fast results even with highly distractable dogs. If corrections can improve on that in the long term, then good, but my experience is somewhat different. The difference in our experiences is probably because I do what I do well and you do what you do well.

This is like me saying "my theory that many of you don't understand positive reinforcement seems to ring true..." You seem convinced that teaching attention around distractions of this nature is usually going to be faster with corrections, well I'm not sure how fast it has to be? I'm not sure the extra 5 minutes of my life saved is worth the extra time taken to teach someone how to do it. If there is a difference at all. We could go around and around in circles here or just accept that I do what I do best and you do what you do best. If I think I'm better not to use corrections in a particular situation and you think you are better to use corrections in a particular situation then we are probably both right. Maybe I'm not very good at using corrections? I don't know, they seem to work well when I do use them and I think that probably carries more weight than reading a few paragraphs on the internet. I agree with everything you have written quoted here and I believe there is a good case for using corrections to teach dogs to deal with stress productively in reasonably well controlled environments.

You have to wonder whether they would eat the stuff we feed our dogs, also.

yeah I would like to know where he is pulling this info from! probably same place the poop comes from ( :p )

None of this is fact.

Good question, treats should not be used to distract, but to reinforce.

That is a Red Belly Black Snake, very prominent in my area in coastal of nsw. They just want to get out of your way as fast as possible but will have a go if cornered. Copperhead - similar looks, similarly dangerously venomous, and similarly keen to get out of your way. Found mostly in wetlands.

I drove out of town to take my dogs hiking on a frosty Sunday morning at 5:30am recently. We were harassed by two separate dogs, one of which appeared to be ownerless (they were back at the car park drinking tea from a thermos). Owners who let their dog harass other dogs are a fairly broad demographic apparently.