Staranais

Like I said, I think different organisations may differ on what's allowed. But I've watched a trial run by Dogsport NZ, affiliated to AUSC, where there was a mixed breed labrador type dog competing in OB, so it's definitely allowed by some organisations. :p My guess is that the mixed breed lab you are referring to was probably only doing a BH (similar to a companion dog test). I think any breed can do a BH Actually, I've just looked up the trial results online to refresh my memory, and the dog already had its OB2, and was going to sit for OB3 that day but was scratched on the day. It was the winter 08 trial, if you doubt me and want to look it up yourself on the NZ Dogsports website.

Like I said, I think different organisations may differ on what's allowed. But I've watched a trial run by Dogsport NZ, affiliated to AUSC, where there was a mixed breed labrador type dog competing in OB, so it's definitely allowed by some organisations.

I think that depends on the club and organisation. The organisation that our local club belongs to only allows certain breeds to do the protection phase and earn full Sch titles. But other breeds are allowed to do the obedience and tracking components, and can earn BH, OB1 - 3, TR1 - 3, FH1 - 2 titles. However, I don't think there are any allowances in jump heights or dumbbell weights for smaller breeds, so you might have trouble doing the obedience phase with a smaller breed anyway.

There probably are some great IPO/schutzund clubs out there that offer as useful a service as Steve does to pet dog owners. However, the IPO clubs I've visited tend to train dogs specifically for the IPO exercises (not day to day obedience under distraction), and aren't that keen on investing time in people with no interest in competing (and fair enough, too). So I guess it all depends exactly what you're after, and what type of dog you have. I've done Steves's TID course with my previous dog, and me and my dog both got a lot out of it. We probably would have gotten a lot out of attending a good IPO club as well, but there weren't any local clubs that were keen to accept a handler with an arthritic middle aged staffy with no intention of doing IPO! Sparky, it took me and my old boy simply ages to move beyond module one, but once we did, he was dynamite. Keep at it!

Off topic but she is one of my all time favourite trainers. I love her website! ;) www.silviatrkman.com Interesting to see a husky in one of the top agility spots, I don't think I've ever seen a husky doing agility before. Also, people haven't mentioned this yet, but since you don't specifically say you want a puppy or a purebred, I'd say don't discount pound/SPCA dogs. One of the SAR groups in this country get most of their dogs from the pound, since they find a lot of nice but drivey dogs there, who come from families that just weren't prepared to deal with their energy level. They like it because don't have the pot luck of growing a puppy and hoping it will have a suitable temperament - they can specifically adopt a dog that's already suitable for the job.

Well, only if other very broad terms like "correction" or "reinforcer" or "punisher" are useless too. Just because a term is a broad term, doesn't mean it's useless. It just means you need other, additional terms if you want to talk in more detail. Like, you could qualify the term "drive" by describing which drive the dog was in, or what level of drive the dog was at, or how the dog was attempting to satisfy the drive. I think there are only a few ways to usefully use drive in training. A dog that's just a tiny bit in drive, or conversely a dog that's so razzed up it literally can't hear what you're saying, or a dog that's adrenalised but terrified of you, are all still in drive, but you can't effectively train them in those states. So when people say they're training in drive, they mean a) the dog is in drive, and b) they're effectively training the dog. So yes, "training in drive" is a more specific concept than a dog just being in drive. JMO, as always.

Oh, I see what you're saying now, I think. If you are redefining drive to be "any time a dog anticipates a reward", then yes, any dog can be in "drive", but I think you're just muddying the waters, since that's not how people here use the term. I can clearly see the difference in my girl - she's keen and happy when we're doing tricks with the clicker, she definately anticipates a reward, she's relaxed and focused and clearly enjoying herself working with me. Pleasure pathways activated! But her intensity jumps to a whole 'nother level when we do drive work. She breaths faster, heart speeds up, muscles go tense ready to go, and she's intensely focused. My old boy got so jacked up in drive that it was often hard to teach him detailed or accurate behaviours when he was in that state (or perhaps I'm just not a skilled enough trainer), so I sometimes taught new things with food/marker and then tried to incorporate them into the drive game when he already kind of understood them. It's clearly a different state than just anticipating a reward. If you came and visited us, I could easily show you the difference. I'm not sure I could in a video or photo. I guess you could argue that anticipating a reward is being in drive, just a lower level of drive, but I'm not sure that I buy that. I don't think it's a continuum. I suspect that drive and anticipation are actually qualitatively different states on a physiological level. Drive = always involves adrenaline release. Anticipation = as you say, probably always involves dopamine release. Dogs can be in both states at once, in drive, and anticipating drive satisfaction = adrenaline and dopamine. But not every dog that is anticipating a reward is in drive. And not every dog in drive is anticipating a reward - there are negative drives as well as positive ones! Ready to be proven wrong by people that know more, of course. But that's my guess based on the dogs I've trained and seen trained, and the physiology I've done.

As a general (very general) rule of thumb, a puppy should be able to hold on for about as many hours as he is months old. Four month old puppy = should be able to hold on for about four hours. Though every dog is an individual, and your mileage may vary! Since you're taking the first few weeks off work, you'll be able to get him into the routine of holding in the crate for a few hours, then being taken out to pee, so that will be far easier on him than just being stuck in a crate and expected to hold for 4 hours from the get go. Good luck with the new addition! I can't say miss the sleepless nights, but puppies are heaps of fun.

The problem with that is that it assumes a dog without natural drive can't be taught to anticipate a reward. I don't really understand the argument? You don't need natural drive to anticipate a reward, or to experience dopamine release, that's true, I agree. But noone's arguing that you can't train a low drive dog (I don't think so, anyway). I think they're just arguing that you often can't train a low drive dog in drive. The low drive dog that anticipates a reward might get trained, but it still isn't working in drive. So it will still fail at training in drive, and at any working discipline that requires the intensity of drive. Dopamine isn't adrenaline. (I honestly don't get the argument, by the way, I'm not just being picky).

Ah, I get it. Yes, I guess I would see sign tracking if the marker wasn't doing its job. So even though the primary reinforcer might be reinforcing reward orienting behaviour, the fact that I'm not seeing any movement towards the reward before I click shows that the marker is far more "powerful" than the primary reinforcer in capturing behaviour - for want of better teminology! I'm sure there's a more elegant way of saying that. Yes, and in my experience a happy, enthusiastic, clear release actually becomes very rewarding to a dog, so I guess that muddying that clarity by trying to keep the dog in position while I'm fumbing round for a treat would probably be counterproductive in most cases. I suppose I merely have far too much time to think about these things in the holidays! Thanks everyone for their thoughts.

Hi Staranais, Something I have learnt with clicker training is that it is better to click when the dog is looking at you, and preferable not to click if the dog is staring at the treat. I have found with my new dog this works very well and he is still concentrating on either my hand signal or my face (as well as doing what I'm asking him to do!) So maybe heeling would have been learnt quicker if you treated while he maintained that position. But I would say that if you do it that way, don't fall into the trap of having him focused more on the treat than on you (assuming that in order to treat in heel position you will have the treat in hand ) Heel position for me includes the dog looking at my face, so it wouldn't be heel position if she was looking at the treat (unless it was balanced on my nose or something!) To be honest though, it's not actually at all practical for me to reward in heel position. Competition heel is a pretty precise behaviour, and the chances of me delivering a reward between me clicking and the dog jumping out of position are pretty remote - which is exactly why I use a marker to train it in the first place. So it was a pretty bad example for me to pick, sorry! I should have picked an example where it was actually possible for me to reward with the dog in position. I guess a more appropriate example might be something like a send away to an obstacle, like Kavik suggested, where you can deliver the reward to the dog when he's still doing the behaviour. Is it better for me to throw the reward to the dog when he's still out there, or does it not make any appreciable difference if I just mark him getting there and give the reward when he dashes back in to me?

If you were getting more of what you were clicking, then it wouldn't have been any faster to reward in position. How do you know? (Genuine question!) I definitely was getting more of what I was clicking. But perhaps I would have got more even faster if I'd rewarded in position? Like, perhaps I was taking two steps forward and one step back, when I could have been going forward the whole time? Does that even make sense? I think my brain's in holiday mode.

Hmmm, lots to think about, thanks guys. Thinking further about it, I've never had any trouble teaching a nice heel by rewarding a few seconds after the marker/release cue, no matter what the dog was doing at the time of reward. I always figured that it didn't really matter, seeing as the dog fully understand what click meant. However, now I'm wondering if the training would have progressed even quicker if I'd somehow managed to mark then reward in heel position. Any thoughts? Sigh! I've been doing this for ages, and still learning about such basic stuff! p.s, Welcome to the forum, Kchogan!

So, I was reading or possibly watching something about dog training the other day, and the author made a point that really confused me. Hopefully one of the trainers here can shed some light on it. The author said that when you use a marker/clicker/bridge to capture a behaviour, not only is the behavior you mark being reinforced by the primary reinforcer, but he reckoned that what the dog was doing at the moment you actually deliver the primary reinforcer was also being reinforced. So if your dog gives you a lovely heel position, and you mark/click that heel position, and the then dog jumps ahead of you to get his reward, and you feed the dog, then you're actually reinforcing both the heel position you clicked and the forging that the dog was doing afterwards. Now, that's not something I've ever really thought through before. As far as I've learned, the whole idea behind using a marker is that it captures the behaviour the dog was doing at the exact time they heard the click. That's the main advantage of using a marker, since you can mark far faster than you can throw a piece of food or a toy at your dog, and to a clicker literate dog, that's supposed to be "the same" as if you'd managed to get the food to them immediately. Yet this guy was saying that although yes, the behaviour you mark is being reinforced by your reward, the behaviour the dog is performing when the primary reinforcer is delivered is also being reinforced. Does anyone have any insight as to whether this is actually correct? I have lots to think about if he is right.

OK, I'll bite. These are just my own thoughts on reading the article. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about GSD, and know nothing at all about Manfred Heyne,so could be misguided in my thoughts. But noone else was talking! It's interesting to read his opinion, and he is clearly passionate and knowledgeable about his dogs. And I personally prefer the working style GSD to the showline GSDs that I've met, and am concerned about health issues in that breed, so I guess I agree with some of what he's saying there as well. However, I am confused by a few things he says. Firstly, he appears to focus entirely on herding, and he doesn't talk much about the other uses that the GSD has today. I guess that's understandable, since from what I can tell, he seems to have spent most of his life working with herding dogs. But the GSD is not longer just a herder, it has to be one of the most versatile dog breeds in the world today, I have seen GSD used for police work, security, guide work, detection work, SAR work, etc. He does not discuss any of that. Does he not think that the other uses of the GSD matter, as long as it remains a good herding dog? Or is it because he believes that a GSD selected specifically for herding is going to automatically be a great police dog/security dog/guide/detection dog as well? But if that is the case, then why don't other specialist herders such as huntaways, kelpies and border collies dominate the police and security industries? Surely the modern GSD is a more versatile dog than it was 100 years ago, it is no longer just a specialist herding dog? I would suggest that today herding isn't necessarily the only or the best way to test the worth of a GSD, since it's no longer a specialist herder. What does everyone else think? He also seems to be upset by the way people need to "bribe" their dogs into working with praise, food, toys, sticks, e-collars, etc. I could be wrong, but from the interview it seems like he hasn't actually worked his dogs in anything except herding? In herding, from what I know, access to the sheep is its own reward so food/toys aren't necessary. On the farms I've worked on, the herding dogs were never rewarded for working with sheep - if they didn't want to work the sheep, they simply weren't kept around to be bred from. That's different to something like obedience, most dogs don't find heeling or down stays particularly fun, so if you want fast and flashy obedience, then you need to reward the dog for it. Same with detection work, dogs don't find the smell of explosives particularly interesting, they only hunt them out because they know that finding that particular scent gets them a reward. I don't think that's a flaw in the dog's breeding? It's more to do with the activity itself? What do other people think? Is it possible, or desirable, to breed a GSD that works just because the handler says so? Or is it simply more effective to train some things with extrinsic rewards like food, toys, praise? I am also a little worried by the way that he insists that his own dog is the "very last" of the original breed, which seems a bit myopic, and the way he seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder: "Although I have won more Sieger titles by far than anyone else in the hundred year history of the SV, no one there knows me anymore!!!" "Even though I am the only one in the SV to win the National Herding Championship title thirteen times and ought to have won it at least five times more" It just makes me take the rest of what he's saying less seriously, you know, since it seems like he has a personal grudge there? Although perhaps that's just a bad translation of what he's actually trying to say, who knows.

I am no expeert but it is my understanding that there is a subtle difference between the two. I don't think you're doing it wrong, but I choose to do it differently. I generally do not show my girl the reward before I ask her to work in drive. I don't want to have to prove to her that I have the toy before she will go into drive! Instead, we have a verbal drive cue "are you ready to work?" that alerts her to the fact that drive rewards are now available, even if she hasn't yet seen a toy. Things like putting on her tracking harness, arriving at a wilderness or rural area, are also non-verbal cues that we're going to go work in drive. And the situation also predicts a drive reward for her sometimes, for example she knows that obeying a recall command when we're walking offleash generally predicts a drive reward. But I think it's important that she will also go into drive on the verbal cue alone, as far as possible. On another subject, it's true that training in drive seems to have developed a jargon of its own. But the same is true of any training method, I think. Ask the average guy on the street to define "negative punishment" or "extinction" or "intermediate bridge" or "avoidance training" and he'll probably look at you just as blankly as if you asked him to define "drive cue" or "building drive". On yet another subject, I personally think there is a huge overlap between training in drive (as the term is used by members of this forum) and reward based training (as the term is used by members of this forum). Like reward based training, training in drive is generally based on the dog earning a reward. Since you can get reward based training that isn't training in drive (no adrenaline involved), and training in drive that isn't based on reward (involves a significant number of corrections), IMO the terms aren't synonymous. But I'm sure there are many people out there doing reward based training who are working their dogs in drive, even if they don't realise they are doing so, or wouldn't describe it as such. I can't personally imagine training a working or even a competition dog without using some form of drive training. I actively foster my girl's tug obsession, since I ultimately want a dog who not only "likes" the tug but one who is literally addicted to the hormone dump she gets when playing tug. A dog like that will search all day to earn the tug, not get bored, or tired, and give up when I still need her to work. But I don't want her only working in drive - she'd drive us all batty if she flipped into drive every time I asked her to do something around the house, and then expected to get to bite something afterwards! Around the house, she doesn't get a drive reward for doing what she's told, and I actively encourage her to relax and chill out and not spin up over everything. My point is, I don't see the point of a debate about whether "drive training" vs "non drive reward based training" is better. I think both types of training have their uses, and I couldn't imagine living with a working dog without using both types of training. JMO. PS - Hi Erny! Nice to "see" you again.

Oooh, is there a prize? Lifted straight from my 2nd year vet science physiology notes, release of adrenaline tends to produce: * dilation of pupils * faster breathing * faster heartrate * heightened awareness * vasoconstriction of skin, vasodilation of skeletal muscle * glucose mobilisation from the liver * gut stasis * hypertension (higher blood pressure) * splenic contraction * sodium retention by the kidneys * increase in sphincter tone Your mileage may vary in trying to observe some of these things in your dog during a training session, of course. Unless you can hook your dog up to a blood pressure monitor, catheter for blood sampling, etc, and then get it into drive! As for the fearful dog, I'd personally say a dog that was adrenalised and fearful was also in "drive", just not in a positive drive, as Huski says. What I mean by that is that, in my opinion, the physiological state is similar (fight/flight/chase arousal created by the release of adrenaline by the sympathetic nervous system) so I'd still say the dog was in "drive". The mental processes that trigger the drive, and the emotional state that go along with the drive, may be very different, as will the dog's behaviour and body language. But you still see all the signs of adrenaline release, as outlined above (= drive). It's the common factor. Enough of this for me, I promised myself I was only going to drop in to post once and here I am responding to things. I'm off to train my dog! Hope I made some sense to someone, whether or not you agree with me.

Interesting idea. I will be interested to check back to see how you go with the weaving! Do you find that the dog gets confused between running between two jump uprights, and running between the sets of two weave poles? Or do you make sure that these look different somehow? Climbing up on things (dining room chair, upturned washing basket, park bench, tree stump) with first her front paws, then all her paws, on cue, is a trick that me and pup have been practicing lately, and I think it's helping her hind end awareness. Also between the legs "heeling" is great fun and I think helps as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xx_e4S-vHM

I agree. Click at the beginning, and you'll interrupt the flow (so to speak!) and distract the puppy. Click at the end, and will the pup even make the connection about what got clicked? I taught my current girl to potty on command with calm verbal praise and sometimes a nice tidbit for a successful "toilet". It took her a few months, but one day it seemed to just "click" with her. Probably would have been shorter if I'd been more consistent about watching her in the house.

I used to think that too, now I'm not so sure. I certainly don't think you can teach a recall off a running cat by bribing a dog with food or with treats. A high prey drive dog will view the food as completely irrelevant in that circumstance. However, with some dogs, correcting the dog to within an inch of its life is not necessarily going to stop it chasing either. Positive or corrective, the solution to that type of prolem must be done intelligently. In my experience, the correction must be timed appropriately (before the dog is fully spun up in drive). IMO the timing of the correction is in many ways more important than the magnitude or type of correction. With my old boy, I had far more success in correcting him and redirecting him gently as soon as he started to think about doing something inappropriately predatory, compared to correcting him harshly when he was already adrenalised and focused on his prey. However, positive solutions can be really helpful too, either as stand alone solutions, or to augment the corrections. You can work on desensitising the dog to the cat, you can work on prey drive games so the dog understands that obeying you leads to drive satisfaction, etc. It's not just about waiting until the dog is taking off after the cat, and then waving a cookie around. Also, in my experience, many people whose dog won't recall off a running cat, also have dogs that won't recall in many other circumstances. They just don't have a good recall, and jumping straight to correcting the dog for a hugely distracting recall isn't the answer. The answer is to go back and train all those intermediate steps that they missed, and then work on the huge distractions like running cats. But hey, what would I know?

In my opinion, drive is a physiological state of arousal, where the dog is charged up and adrenalised. It's involuntary and unconcious, as the dog can't choose to release adrenaline. So I guess, IMO, a dog in drive is a dog that is working under the effect of an adrenaline rush. In contrast, a dog working in "food exchange" is a dog that might be happy to get food, and might be interested in working with you, but isn't adrenalised about it. Positive drives look similar to the observer, since you're mostly seeing the effect of adrenaline on the dog = excitment/arousal. But they're not equivalent in training, since a dog in prey drive won't be satisfied by presentation of food, and vice versa, since this doesn't satisfy the dog's idea of how to fulfil the drive. People can pick holes in that if they like, and I'm perfectly aware the science of it isn't precise or "technically" correct. But as a basic explanation, it works for me, with my dogs and my training. To me, drive = adrenaline, and the concious mental process that goes along with it as the dog works out how to achieve drive satisfaction. I'm not sure if adrenaline is all that drive is, but I don't think you can have drive without adrenaline. JMO.

Does she actually understand the concept of sniffing the boxes to find the herb smelling one, yet? If not, I'd break it down, and train that concept before doing anything with the indication. To train the concept, I'd probably just be calmly walking her past the boxes, letting her sniff each one, and clicking when you were at the right box immediately after she sniffed, whether or not she indicated. Let her make the connection between sniffing the right scent, and immediately hearing the click. After a few sessions, she'll sniff the right one and look at you to say "pay up!" Then you can add the add the indication, by asking for a sit after she looks at you and before you click. I haven't taught this, but have taught other scent work, and I think this is how I'd approach it if it was me. If I wanted to train with a drive reward, I'd introduce the drive reward after she knew how to do the behaviour. Just like you can teach "sit" or "down" with food first, then incorperate it into a drive game. Probably a skilled trainer could train it in drive to start with, but I think I'd find that too difficult with a high drive dog.

Is your GSD actually "cured" of aggression though, Diablo, or are there still situations that you still have to avoid or manage your dog in? I'd be impressed if you can turn him loose in a dog park with a bunch of strange dogs, or allow screaming primary school kids to run up to him and tug his ears, or allow strangers to approach him on the street when you're not there, and be confident he will act appropriately without him being under command. Most if not all dogs, especially predatory, aggressive or formerly aggressive dogs, do need to be managed somewhat. How much management you need to do is merely a matter of degree. There are situations I wouldn't expect my girl to be able to cope with when she's older, and situations I expect to have to either avoid or manage her in. That's just the reality of owning a working line shepherd, or any predatory or aggressive breed. If I wanted a dog park dog, I would have gotten a golden retriever.

So don't get mad with me for asking you to clarify or back up the information you provide. I have an inquiring mind too. Turns out Dr Jean Dodds is much more conservative in what she claims about vaccine side effects than many people on this thread have been (although obviously much more convinced of the importance of vaccine side effects than many vets are)... interesting to get the info straight from the horse's mouth. Thanks for the email address, Oakway. Something just popped into my thoughts. You said you had mailed Jean Dodds so why thank me for the addy. You must have already had it. I also would like a copy of her reply. Yes, Erny PMed it to me, so I thanked her via PM. I thanked you too, because you gave it to me too. Is that an issue?

Hey, try clicking and driving at the same time... :rolleyes: Clicking and driving? We're working on the idea that bikes riding past are actually predictors of the opportunity to get luncheon, rather than exciting prey objects to be mauled by juvenile malligators. She's not convinced yet. But I thought we'd try the softly softly approach before I broke out the corrections.