sidoney

Have you started solids? It's not clear from your post.

Soooo .... does the friend say it works?

LOL I am so going to get a zone for my Kelpie and the bench and rubbish bin.

You have the wire placed along the bottom of the fence with a 90 degree bend in it, so some of it goes along the ground into the yard, and some of it goes up the fence? That stopped a digging foster I had. If that doesn't help, then perhaps something that will is an electronic containment system, like this one from Innotek.

Dog looking back slows dog and takes its focus off obstacles - dogs have excellent peripheral vision.

Early on SG taught the flip away (e.g. on the first trip to Australia) and later regretted it heartily, for the reasons given - hence it's no longer taught. It's different to what Vickie is talking about. Someone described it - who was it? - as letting the dog know that it's going to see you out of its opposite eye. Rear cross achieved by handler movement across the path behind the dog.

As said, improve fencing to chooks. Depending on how the dog acts around the chooks, you may have to block vision in to chooks. Chooks moving stimulate prey drive. We had chickens for years but rehomed them to my mother because my working Kelpie and a foster Kelpie x started to obsess over them. To herd but not kill them, but it's still prey drive, and it meant they spend much of their time watching chickens - even with double layer fencing and a sight screen. I wanted the dog as a companion not a chook watcher and so I made the choice to rehome the chickens (my mother has a big chook yard and chooks of the same breed).

The reason I don't trial ATM is that it takes pretty well a whole day each time, and I don't have that. That's also the reason I'm not going to seminars.

That is me, mostly. If I have a choice between a seminar and a competition, I'd go to a seminar. I enjoy the satisfaction of private achievement. Mind you I've done very little of either over the last year.

Over vaccination has possible links to a range of health problems.

Parramatta International Canine Sports does - agility and flyball.

I don't think he needs to rehome the dog ... IF He and the family get professional hands-on advice and FOLLOW it. And sooner rather than later. If he did this, as has been said, the relationship could improve vastly and everyone including the dog would be much happier. If he doesn't do this (as has also been said), it's hard to see how this is going to have a happy ending. Things might seem to the people to be going OK, but there is a demonstration that he needs to learn more about dog communication, dog body language, dog needs, dog behaviour, dog training. All of which he can learn if he cares to. Is is perhaps seen as sign of weakness to get help with the situation? pf, I think you are dead on with your assessment - the assigning of fault to the dog. That has been consistent, despite the odd comment that it's not.

I'm going to go back to Vickie's initial question a bit. If we break it down I think there are two key phrases. One is "without external rewards or punishments". We've discussed that fairly extensively and I think most of us agree that there is some kind of motivation there, although it may not be designed to be a motivation, or an obvious one. I think the other one that deserves to be mentioned is "by habit". I'm going to take that to mean consistent repetition. IMO this is something that I've seen as lacking in some training. First, consistency, and secondly, repetition. Consistency, to me, means without variation. Repetition means as many times as is needed. If the context is set up that a particular response is initiated in the dog, and that the response is successfully repeated many times, then IMO that is effective. Another question she asks is what dogs would you do this with, or not. IMO the dog that you can do training with, without having extra (say food or toy) rewards, is one that is highly "pack driven". An alternative might be that it is in a context where to do the behaviour itself is self rewarding, and you can control whether the dog can self reward or not. Although this itself may rely on previously trained behaviours, e.g. if the dog is going to be prevented from self rewarding at inopportune times, it may need to have a reliable stop or recall, so that you can control its access to the behaviour. Are the behaviours more dependable? It may be that the behaviour is simpler, or it may be one that is required more often. It may be one where there is a smaller acceptable range of behaviour (e.g. either the dog goes in the crate, or it does not). Varying reinforcement rates and values gets into an area where a person needs to have an understanding of theory and of method. If it's done effectively, it is very dependable. IMO a problem (as I have seen it in action) is not so much the reinforcement itself, but establishing and maintaining very black-and-white criteria. When the criteria get more vague, the dog firstly gets uncertain, which slows behaviour, and also it has to think more (is it this? or this?) which also slows behaviour. The more clear-cut the criteria, the less the dog thinks in response to the cue, and the more quickly and confidently it can act. (And cues need also to be clear-cut.) This idea of criteria keys into the phrase "by habit". If there are no clear criteria, then the dog cannot form a habit.

And that can be the difference between a trainer and a teacher. I totally agree that being able to look at a dog and "read" it is a very important skill, as is a sense of timing, and a knowledge of what to do, probably without really having to think about it (as that would take too long). Some of the best trainers are horrible teachers because they do it all without thinking about it, and cannot communicate what they do. And some people who make bad trainers, because they are uncoordinated or whatever, can make great teachers because they have a deep understanding and can communicate it clearly. Another theory I will mention that I have found useful for understanding dogs and training is the one that K9Force introduces at the start of his seminars. I don't know the name of it, or even if it has an actual name. That theory deals with something that learning theory, which derives from behaviourism, does not - and that is the emotional or arousal state of the dog.

I also want to distinguish between theory and method. Theory is a consistent set of statements that help people to understand and predict some real life phenomenon. Method is what you use in order to bring the theory into the real world. "Learning theory" is a set of concepts, that includes classical and operant conditioning. It is not perfect and does not cover all real life contingencies. However it has proven to be broadly useful to explain animal behaviours (although it can be deficient for human experience). It has also proven broadly useful as a basis on which to develop teaching methods. Methods, for dogs, include clicker training, lure training, check chain training, the Koehler method, and so on. A method is some sort of an integrated system. A method is not a theory and may not explicitly include theory. However a method can normally be understood by using a valid theory to analyse its elements. Then there are also random training events that crop up and may be managed in many different ways and with varying levels of consistency. I would not call this "method". In some instances the human may be aware that it is a training event, and in others, the human is not aware. This IMO would be the kind of training that most dogs receive.

Err new post again. I still think that accuracy in written language is important. That way people can be talking with some confidence about the same thing.

The value in a "theory" is that it can be used to understand something that happens in the real world. It's rare that people put theory before doing something. They generally just do it. Animal training that explicitly uses learning theory is an exception. I'll use an example from the horse world. You get a whole bunch of "horse whisperers" that perform something that can be seen as akin to magic. They have discovered "the language of equus" or something equally silly, and worked up a whole bunch of rituals and rigmaroles around it. They gather themselves disciples that believe the magic and follow the method. But if you observe what they do and interpret it using learning theory, you can break it down and understand what is done in a much more simple way. And then take what is useful without being blinded by the myths that surround it. (note a new post for a major edit! )

"Learning theory" can be as hard or as easy as you want to make it. For most behaviours, it comes down to some very simple basics and for the average person, the basics is all they need. I could write the basics in about eight sentences. People who seem to "know theory", especially if they make it seem hard, probably have a deficient understanding. If they don't seem to be able to train their own dogs, that also suggests that their understanding is deficient. Of course it is. I questioned the possibility of teaching a dog without any positive or negative (motivation) at all. And IMO consistency is more important than just about anything and this may be where the people you are talking about are having problems. I agree with you that some posts on this forum make what should be simple into something that is very complex! It doesn't need to be! If someone has the basics, they can teach just about any everyday behaviour. ETA: sorry about editing late! I went out to do some poop scooping and kept thinking about the topic!

That reminds me of a trainer's description of what happened when she trained her dogs to stay on platforms while a chosen dog was being trained. It involved the Premack principle (a more likely behaviour being a reinforcer for a less likely one), and transfer of value. The person who did it found that initially the high value was on coming off the platform to be trained. However coming off the platform to be trained reinforced the dog staying on the platform, and being on the platform increased in value, until being on the platform was of higher value to the dog, and the dog would work in order to run back to the platform. This did not stay stable - the reinforcer of going to the platform increased the value of being trained. She found that the high value flip flopped between training and being on the platform. BTW having a specific terminology makes it easier to communicate precisely in whatever field that one desires. It assists in keeping people "on the same page", as Erny might say. It's not for everyone, granted, but the basic concepts are easy to achieve, and can reduce confusion, particularly (as I said) when communication is by text. In addition, an understanding of learning theory, as contrasted to method and specific instances, allows one to be more flexible, particularly since learning theory is applicable both cross-situation and cross-species. I will also add that not understanding at least the basics can lead to errors and inefficient or ineffective training. Some people understand innately without being able to vocalise it. Others don't. It's worth mentioning because all sorts of people read this forum and I would find it a pity if people went away from this thread thinking that you can train a dog without the dog having some kind of motivation to do things, because ideas and concepts were not described clearly or for some other reason. More thoughts: I think we are all agreed that you cannot train a specific dog to do a specific behaviour or set of behaviours on a forum. Words cannot be specific enough to accurately communicate specific problems or situations with specific dogs or trainers - words cannot describe the full range of behaviour. This is especially important for problem behaviours. A forum is a medium for a discussion of ideas and concepts. Ideas can broaden knowledge or give deeper knowledge. Here, the knowledge is of dog behaviour, motivation, training, etc. The more clearly and specifically the ideas can be expressed and understood, the more useful they are. For people who want to discuss ideas, the clear expression of them enhances the discussion. The ideas can then lead to understanding of concepts, the trying out of the concepts in the real world, and an expansion of the ability of the person who has participated in the discussion (whether actively or passively).

Where does one draw the line between "easy" and "too easy"? There needs to be understanding of what is happening, even basic understanding. It's much easier to provide understanding when doing things hands-on and face to face. But in a text based medium such as this, loose use of language can lead to different understandings by writer and the various readers. This is why there is SO MUCH misunderstanding in text based communication. ETA: There are people who can do things, wonderful and amazing things some of them, but who can not communicate what they are doing and how. Or not verbally. And some of them don't even understand it themselves. They just know if they do THIS, then THAT happens. This can lead to things like method training, without understanding what underlies the method, and inflexibility.

IMO it would be good to clarify a few uses of language here. "No outside reward or punishment" could be better stated as "no trainer-originated reward or punishment". The dog is getting something from the environment (I include biofeedback in this). There is some mixing of the concepts of cues and reinforcement. A cue elicits a behaviour. A reinforcement increases the likelihood of the behaviour happening again. A cue can be a reinforcer in a behaviour chain, but in this case it reinforces the behaviour that precedes it, not follows it. By that I mean, as an example, if you are giving a dog its dinner, if you say "sit", and it knows that after the sit it you will tell it to (for example) "eat it", the words "eat it" are both a reinforcer for the sit, and a cue for eating the dinner. Further forward in the chain, if you call the dog to you, ask it to sit, and then tell it to eat its dinner, the word "sit" can be a reinforcer for the action of coming, and a cue to do the sit behaviour. It's worth being clear about terminology when specialised terminology such as "cue" and "reinforcer" is used, as otherwise it can lead to confusion.

Crate him in the garage or laundry or something. They can work themselves up just by running around. If you restrict his movement and sensory input that should help. Edit: BTW he's very cute! My first dog of my very own, not a family dog, was an ACD.

In response to your second post Erny, yes I think we are talking about the same thing. There is a motivation for the action, but it's not obvious, and so it may seem that there is no reward or punishment. And it may not be necessary to work out what the motivation is - if the behaviour is happening and reliable. It is working for this dog and this handler and goodo for that. It may or may not work for a different dog or handler or situation or context, and if it's assumed that there is no reward or punishment, that leaves little room to adjust the approach.

Erny I see what he's saying ... the dog gets some kind of reward from the behaviour that it does. Since the behaviour is done for some kind of motivation. The reward comes after the action, it just doesn't come from you. No difference to the dog really, it gets the reward. And the classically conditioned cue is associated with the behaviour. For something that the dog is likely to do infrequently, or quite a bit while you are not there, it may be less efficient, but for something where you can control the situation more and reliably provide a cue with the action, it could be effective. However that is not the situation described by the OP, with her first question. Since the behaviour is not a self directed one, but the dog is guided into or placed in the crate initially.

It wasn't an action that the dog was carrying out by herself. It was an action where the dog was put into the crate, this was repeated, and the dog started to go into the crate by herself. My suggestion was that there was a motivation provided for the action.