Willem

wrt the video: @ 1 minute: ...if someone wants to experience the difference between 'herding traits' and 'retrieving traits' - such games are a good way to find out :D

aaah!...negative reinforcement via removing noxious stimuli following correct behaviour :laugh: ...only kidding... ...I actually noticed this morning that most of the time I already whistle (mouth) when recalling her, especially when she is further away...she comes flying like a rocket and if she is close enough so I don't have to yell I use verbal 'place' or 'finish' with the particular hand signal (if I want her to sit by my side)...and yeah, some of the recalls at the beach might be even further than 200 m. Interestingly, the further she is away, the snappier the recall is. If she is out of sight and I don't call her, it takes approx. 30 seconds till her head pops up and she checks out where I am. When she is more than approx. 150 m away and I don't call her it won't take long and she comes closer by herself - I guess that's her herding traits. Eta: ...refined wording...

I think you would like Pukka's Promise: The Quest for Longer-Lived Dogs by Ted Kerasote...I still have 200 pages to go...

...sorry, I get the message 'link is broken'?...I'm still resisting to surrender to Fakebook, so that could be the cause too

wrt 'EH': German-English ...sounds a little bit like 'Hey' without the 'H'...(just a verbal cue) wrt reward etc.: there might be the right reward out there for this dog...but they (owner, instructor) are still looking for it...

...not required, and even better than luring - you just reward the wanted behaviour that's triggered by the cue and not the lure. Luring involves the risk that the treat becomes the visual trigger. Hang on, but you said in your response to Mrs RB that the test was in how a dog trained with positive reinforcement performed when the treat wasn't visible? if the treat being visible is a requirement for the dog to perform the behaviour then positive reinforcement training is not being done properly, same as if a handler has to repeatedly jerk a collar correction based training isn't being done correctly. ..not sure whether I got this (brain gets tired)...positive reinforcement is adding an appetitive stimulus following correct behaviour - you don't show the stimulus to trigger the wanted behaviour - that would be luring. Eta: ah, got it, yes, you are right (proof is still in the pudding, but is shouldn't matter whether she has the treat in her hand or not :)...) Eta: to put this into some context: what I had in mind was the example I mentioned in the same post that treats as reward doesn't achieve always the same reliable outcome. Take a dog that is less food driven and it will be much harder to get the wanted reflex imprinted.

aaah!...negative reinforcement via removing noxious stimuli following correct behaviour :laugh: ...only kidding...

...not required, and even better than luring - you just reward the wanted behaviour that's triggered by the cue and not the lure. Luring involves the risk that the treat becomes the visual trigger.

the long leash I use for walking and training the recall is actually only 5 meters - it seems it doesn't need to be longer as the reflex the cue triggers seems to be independent from the distance. I have a longer leash / line, but rarely used it as it always got tangled. When I wrote '20 meters': that's the typical distance she trots in front of me when off-leash, sometimes it might be 50 meter, depends on the line of sight and how much distance I allow her. Wrt '200 meter': not sure whether my voice is loud enough to call her over such a distance (would have to use a whistle, we trained this too, but not over 200 meters) - I don't think she ever took off so far. The oval from the club trainings ground might have 150 m in length - so that would be the longest distance I could test her recall (while she was running with other dogs). When we bump into walkers respectively if we see them in the distance she stops, turns the head to me and waits for instructions :) - I call her, she comes, heel position / sit...walkers pass (often with some positive comments about her behaviour), she gets her reward and 'go'.

@SG (your last 2 posts): ...of course you don't need to have a treat once the wanted behaviour / response to a cue is imprinted - that the whole purpose of positive reinforcement training. The proof is in the pudding and you proved it. Wrt your second question / post #29: I guess I answered it with my response to MRB.

Might as well deal with this in here. in order for the dog to be in motion - the dog applies force to the ground and its own body... in any case - physics aside - the motion of the dog is initiated by the dog. I'm not moving. I am as the fence post. I don't use the lead to yank the dog in my direction and I don't do that fast change direction and yank that some recommend. I just wait for the dog to be paying attention to me and then encourage her to come with me - and reward that. I do tell her when I'm changing direction and she responds well to that. Most of our loose lead walking is done without a lead where it is safe to do so. So our on lead training is mostly to stop her nicking off to eat stuff out of the hedges or stop her from scaring the crap out of poodle crosses and their owners at the park - ie my recall there is not perfect so she stays on lead. When we're on the footpaths mostly it's entirely loose lead walking - unless we spy a cat. And then it can get exciting. But there's no way I initiate the force in that. She's pretty good at not launching at cats but sort of indicating instead. And then I can reward her staying calm enough to pay attention and there is no launch - hooray but an ongoing training challenge for us. If I beat her or yanked her around for trying to chase a cat - I think she would blame the cat and become more aggressive when she saw one. ..physics aside???? ... you might have taught me a lot about the right semantics wrt operant conditioning etc., but that doesn't give you the right to tell an engineer 'physics aside'!!!! :D it doesn't matter who initiates the tug of war - you (as the pinnacle of evolution and superior representative of mammals) are responsible for the inflicted tension, whether you are playing the fence post or not. You, respectively your choice, provides the anchor required for the tension in the leash. What I did (and still do) - and I assume it added significantly to her good recall - is using a long leash when walking her. That allows her (if I allow it) to walk further in front of me. Now I trained her (while she was just trotting and not distracted) to respond to an 'EH' plus hand signal and / or a gentle tug to go back into heel position (which got rewarded). Similar to clicker training most of this training happend without distraction on daily walks, and now it is pretty deep imprinted. Plus training the take-it/leave-it game with the flirt pole (her favorite game). When I walk her now on-leash, all I need is a gentle tug to get her attention (with hand signal or verbal cue for heel position), if off-leash an 'EH' will do the same (she can be 20 meters in front of me)...and if we bump into cats, magpies or cattle an 'EH' plus leave-it will hold her back.

agree with everything, except the red highlighted text - there might be sometimes less trauma, but it can just be the same. wrt agility: ...my dog is too fast (for me) and doesn't give a damn if she knocks something over :D ...on the other hand I could send her through a burning tire (because she trust me). When you read my last post (about the trust etc.): I guess no matter what tool you pick, you need the trust of your dog when exercising this particular tool - it might be easier to get the trust for a positive reward based system with yummy treats - the proof will be in the pudding when you do the recall without the yummy treat in your hand :) . There are also other examples where the reward system just don't work as you would expect it based on your experience with other dogs: in our class there is a friendly guy with a friendly dog, nothing wrong with the guy, nothing wrong with the dog - except I just can't see any bond between the two, and the dog is not really food driven. Consequently the communication between the two is somehow handicapped when it comes to recalls and distance training.

thanks for the article...also I would have liked to read more about the 'genuine skills' - my objective is to establish a communication with my dog that allows me to guide her without any force. That's the big objective for me in dog training. And, for me, the most important skill to get there is gaining the trust of my dog. Once I got her trust, the learning curve (in agility and obedience) increased dramatically. Positive reinforcement, force...that are only tools for the basic training in my toolbox, without the trust any of these tools are difficult to use. And - this might sound confusing - IMO these tools don't help regarding gaining the trust, they are really only useful for the basic training in agility and obedience. For gaining the trust some other skills are required - can't find the right wording, has something to do with the attitude towards the dog...

Wait, what the hell are you using it for? If I'm walking my dog and he's walking nicely by my side then that's exactly the purpose? If something spooks him or distracts him or whatever the entire purpose of the leash is so he doesn't take off into traffic? ...post #1, fourth paragraph...

...and Bob Baily also said ...'In the modern use of the name CLICKER TRAINER, punishment, especially positive punishment, is "disallowed." I allow myself to use punishment if I believe it is necessary to accomplish the task and if the task merits the use of punishment. I rarely have need of punishment.'... wrt your comment: ...you are not really recommending that most dog owners shouldn't use a leash?

agree partly - if 'bad training' refers to the jerking and stressful placing: I agree; however wrt SG's first post I'm not so sure whether it is just the different trainings philosophy with the employment of force that influenced the evaluation. What do you mean? as I already mentioned the description you gave of the training seems to be similar to the training I experience in our club, however based on the not so detailed information you provided (that's not meant as criticism) 'similar' could be 'very similar' or 'less similar'...and my judgment about whether it is really a not so good training depends on the level of similarity E.g. you mentioned that you watched different classes, so I assume the classes were led by different instructors and my question would be if they all showed the same - from your point of view - negative handling of the dogs? wrt 'jerking': my expectation is that the higher the class, the less force should be required; for me it wouldn't seem right if there was a lot of 'jerking' going on in class 3, class 3 should actually allow most of the exercises without leash and the leash should be used here more or less only to prevent run offs (which can still happen sometimes when training recalls). Also there shouldn't be any physical force required to get a dog to sit, drop and stand - a dog not able to perform this simple task on hand signal or verbal cue shouldn't be in class 3 (except there are medical conditions that would prevent e.g. a sit). Conversely I wouldn't be too much bothered about appropriate applied leash force in class 1 (whether it's 'jerking' or 'just a tug' depends likely on the viewer); it also depends heavily on the type of dog: for some boofheads jerking is just a tug - for other dogs it is a pain inflicting physical correction. If this is not recognized by the owner I would expect that the instructor would point this out and would give the particular owner the right advice. wrt collars: again, a pinch collar (I'm actually not sure whether they are allowed in our club - have to ask) might be justifiable in class 1 or beginner, but in class 3 every dog should be trainable with normal collar. The obedience level associated with the different classes should be clear recognizable IMO. From your description I got the impression that all the classes looked the same for you, and I have some doubts that this was really the case as this would be - IMO - a really bad trainings performance. Hence I took into consideration (I might be wrong here, please correct me and don't take it personal) that you might have been slightly biased when noticing a few things that didn't comply with your understanding of the training you wanted.

nope, I wasn't aware - on the other hand I hope you are not the only reader of this thread :D ; saying this, I appreciate your thoughts and comments and if ok I would like to pm you with some questions about the NDTF course...

Willem There is a not very subtle difference to the dog applying the force, and the human applying the force via the leash. But personally I prefer "reward based" rather than "force free". There are times when I use "force" not so much as pushing my dog into doing something but stopping her from doing something. But she's usually the one applying the force. I apply the equal and opposite force in the same way as if I'd tied her to a fence post. So if a dog launches after something it is not supposed to be chasing - I don't want the owner letting it go. there is no difference, not even a subtile one - or you would prove Newton (actio = reactio) and Einstein (relativity) wrong, which would be quite interesting. Fact is that the dog can't apply a force on its own if you don't apply the force on the other end of the leash! You want to move, but the dog doesn't results in tension in the leash, the dog wants to move, but you don't results in tension in the leash, you both want to move, but in different directions or with different speed results in tension in the leash. The difference between you and the fence post is only that you can move, the post can't. For the training there is no difference regarding force respectively who applies the force: you and your dog walking in different directions will result in tension in the leash. Saying that it is the dog that applies the force (and that the exercise is therefore 'force free') because he doesn't follow you is ignoring your existence and intention - but you are the reason why there is the tension in the leash! The purpose of the leash / lead is to 'force' the dog to follow the handler respectively to respond to the handler's movements, not the other way round - so who applies the force? If you want to do a force free training: use a string instead of a leash...(and no collar grab games). Eta: the problem of the 'force-free trainer army' is that they mistaken the objective of the training for a suitable method to get there. The difference is in one case the dog can decide if it would rather keep doing what it wants to do (pull to try and get over there) or stop and relieve the pressure on the lead. In the other the dog can either do what it doesn't yet want to do (follow the handler) or continue to feel the pressure of the lead. And Mrs RB did specifically say that she doesn't claim force free. She (and I) go for reward based training, aiming to make what the handler wants and what the dog wants to do the same thing, eliminating the need for that second scenario where the dog has to do what it doesn't want to do or be jerked by the leash. the dog has always the choice to relieve the pressure by following the handler - however, the dog might need some help to recognize this respectively to make the right choice. The built up of tension and relieve of tension in the leash is like a communication between dog and handler, but they both have to speak this language, and learning this language needs some time and assistance respectively the right tools. IMO leash pulling is one of the bad behaviours that is very easy to address - nevertheless a lot of dog owners 'prefer' to get dragged behind their dogs instead of putting some serious work in it to stop it.

agree. agree, but if your dog trusts you, physical supportive force doesn't have to be stressful. agree partly - if 'bad training' refers to the jerking and stressful placing: I agree; however wrt SG's first post I'm not so sure whether it is just the different trainings philosophy with the employment of force that influenced the evaluation. agree. Dogs sense whether the dog owner is confident in what he/she is doing and this is a requirement for quality training. If there are too many unspoken irritations it will affect the training negatively, no matter whether it is a 'good' or 'bad' trainer. Another option is just visit the training from time to time without dog, just to pickup some useful ideas. Eta: spelling...

Yes using the leash to correct the direction your dog is heading (if you pull on the leash) is a physical correction. No, a sound signal is verbal, not physical, but your 'Eh' sound is a verbal correction. You could have a leash on your dog, but not use it to correct the direction the dog is heading, instead you could be using food or your voice, body language, toys to keep your dog's attention, and the leash is just a safeguard to make sure it does not run off after something. And I have nothing against 'crazy walking', I do a similar thing but try to change direction before he gets so distracted that the leash will come into effect wrt 'EH' sound: it is actually more a mix of an attention seeking signal and verbal correction...similar like using the tongue making the clicker noise (but that does only work over a few meters, not if she is 30 meters away from me). I use also 'NO', and that would be the verbal correction. The 'EH' is more a 'watch out what you doing' and if she doesn't rethink I have to use the 'NO'. wrt 'crazy walking': as I mentioned I used also positive reinforcement (in form of treats, praise), however when she was younger she got so easily distracted that the added force (with the right timing while doing the crazy walk there is really no harsh jerking required) accelerated her learning dramatically. Now we do the crazy walk just a as heeling exercise without leash / force. wrt definition of 'physical correction': some light reading here http://www.training-your-dog-and-you.com/Dog-Training-Corrections.html

if I use the leash to correct the direction my dog is heading to make sure we both going in the same direction I would call it physical correction...?...now - after training her using force in combination with positive reinforcement - it is enough to make the 'EH' sound, so no physical correction required anymore (saying this: a sound signal is somehow a physical signal too :) ) And I agree that you can achieve the same objective with different tools - depending on the individual dog some work better, some will take longer, some will come with associated risks. Using force applied via 'crazy walking' (it actually doesn't require much force with the right timing) was for me a very effective tool to erase excessive leash pulling.

as someone with a technical background I'm pretty familiar with the general term 'force' - and in the world of physics it just exists without prejudice. Without controlling force we wouldn't be able to build houses, developing engines and drive cars, we wouldn't even be able to walk as it requires to resist gravity. Hence for me it is somehow strange that force used in dog training has such a negative image. Dog owners using force when handling, managing and training their dog seem automatically abusing the dog. I can torture and even kill my dog with food - for many dog owners food equals love, and more food equals more love, still food doesn't seem to have the same negative image as 'force'. Of course a lot of damage can be done by using force, but if used wisely it is also very helpful. For me using force in dog training is just another tool in my tool box and I value it as high as I value positive reinforcement. And it is not even a one-way street in a dog/dog-owner relationship: think about guide dogs where the dog actually guides the owner via a gentle pulling force. Today I learned that for some dog owners the only purpose of the leash is to prevent that the dog gets hit by a truck...seriously??? Where does it come from that a training that focuses on positive reinforcement has to be at the same time force free?...I understand that the objective in dog training is to interact with the dog one day without requiring any force, but that doesn't mean for me that on the way towards this keen target I'm not allowed to use force. The simplest equipment that allows me to use force in a positive way is the leash: I use it to train loose leash walking, to control the distance to dangerous objects (cars, trucks etc.) or people, to correct the direction to make sure we (the dog and I) are heading in the same direction - and I do this by applying force. At the beginning I needed more force, now most of the time a very gentle tug is enough to get her attention. Other dog owner using the leash too, but some will argue that this has nothing to do with applying force. Now - I mentioned this in another thread - Newton's law and Einstein's theory of relativity is valid also for the system dog-leash-handler: the dog can't apply a force on its own if the handler doesn't apply the force on the other end of the leash! The purpose of the leash is to 'force' the dog to follow the handler respectively to respond to the handler's movements, not the other way round (except for the guide dog) - so who is responsible for the force transferred via the leash? And using a leash for managing, handling and training by applying force doesn't equal hurting the dog either. Force can be used for guidance, as a signal (works both ways, e.g. in case of guide dogs), pulling a sledge or even when playing tug of war - or other rougher games. Of course, the threshold when force becomes a hurting, painful stimuli needs to be considered all the time - what some dog owners seem to oversee is that this threshold differs from dog to dog and breed to breed. The way you can play rough with a cattle dog is likely not suitable for more gentle breeds and dogs - the key is to recognise where the threshold for each individual dog is, or more precisly, where the threshold for my/your own dog is to make sure it is not exceeded. And the latter one might be the crux in this controversial discussion about using force vs. force-free training: if you are not confident regarding where this threshold for your dog is, you likely won't be confident in using force as a helpful tool. May the force be with you ... :)

I saw a really good idea on a trainer I follow, tie a slip knot in the middle of your leash, try not to let it come undone :D That's a really clever trick for assessing how your LLW is coming along! yep, it is a good exercise, and because this objective is not so easy to achieve it just proves that the method to get there is not force free!

I saw a really good idea on a trainer I follow, tie a slip knot in the middle of your leash, try not to let it come undone :D Nice! Wherever I can I play and train with no leash - it was the best thing to get me out of very old habits. My youngster does drag a long line "just in case" as she's very quick and I don't have many safe places to train her. I'm definitely not perfect when I'm walking my 3 dogs from A to B....not easy with a frozen shoulder....but I just keep aiming to improve my skills every day. ...of course ...just in case...the suitable methods to get there...(BTW: if you can only catch the end of the long line while your dog is accelerating towards ....lets say a truck, that actually can increase the risk of injuries compared to using just a normal leash - but I'm sure you know this.)

http://fenzidogsportsacademy.com/index.php/courses/8524 .... nice picture :D Eta:...and ....surprise, surprise...the equipment required inlcudes ... A leash and a buckle collar, or a PLAIN harness...