leopuppy04

ok - will try that - I am making the two movements as i'm trying to get her head up - if that makes any sense lol.... Yeah - sorry about the video quality - hard doing it by yourself ! Thanks for the ideas

Would you believe me if I said she still 'pokes' when she does that? Not that she is getting anywhere save my stomach, but I assume that would carry over..... How could I get her to just sort of tilt her head up as she comes in? Bring the food up higher? I like the chair though - i'll start from there and see how we go..... darn dog

OK Having a little bit of difficulty with fronts and Kinta. She doesn't 'scoot sit' and will rock back... but - the main issue is she rams me in places she shouldn't! Anyone have any ideas on how to rectify this? I've added a vid to help you see what I mean Thanks ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmqNmj_9EOs

BL - here is a rather pathetic vid I did of Kinta and myself last night - it is at the 'starting stages' although unfortunately trying to video it yourself AND train is hard - so please excuse the times I go out of frame (and the chatter ). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edW3fPb2O_0 ETA - the times I am feeding her with my hand I would usually throw the food - but we didn't have enough room last night .... so hand feeding it was

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edW3fPb2O_0 My pup Kinta learning heel. Please excuse the mindless chatter She is only just starting to learn and to say i'm pleased is an understatement

OK - but here's one to confuse you - what about if you want it with different paws? :D ROFL - make it difficult eh?! I haven't really thought about it as I always use the same paw... but then for shake I use the same command for both paws but my hand is different (ie: signal).... in terms of target training - yeah - same command for both paws unless it mattered which one they used ??

ROFL - Thanks SB ;)..... An agility friend does this really cool 'peter rabbit' where she says 'peter rabbit' to her dog and the dog will lift up her paws high above her head and 'swipe' her ears - like she is cleaning them like a rabbit! IT is awesome ;) LOL Mrs D - yeah - same as the nose target.... lets see if I can answer everything (without confusing myself ) For a nose target I use "touch" For a paw target I use "paw" If they were initially touching an object (other than the tin food lid/ target stick/ my fingers) i'd use the "touch' or "paw" initially and then once they are doing it reliably I would change the command - eg: I have gotten Leo to nose target to close the cupboard door. Instead of using 'touch' now, I use "cupboard" (cos 'close' sounded like 'close' and 'shut' sounded like 'sh!t' which sounds like 'sit' .... and yep - the dog told me this ;) ). With the lid/target stick/fingers - the command is always "touch" / "paw" if he were to paw target my knee -i'd use a command such as 'march' - so yep it changes ;)

ahhhh UK heeling I wish I could get that!

Now you've gone past my field of expertise what is a paw target? LOL - getting the dog to touch a target with his paw - like a nose touch. I usually use a 'tin food lid' and get them to 'hit' that.... you can get them to move their paw anywhere (well... thats physically possible) by asking them to 'paw' the target .... it's fun! now - if only I knew how to do this "peter rabbit" thing I saw a fellow trainer do with her dog......

nope - usually it follows a click which 'ends' behaviour. I only get really finicky about 'releasing' on 'known' behaviours because... I usually throw food for a non-cued behaviour.... with the exception of heeling Kavik - if you are concerned about confusion - try a new command

I've never tried it - but could you use a paw target if the dog was in a drop? Kind of like 'crossing paws' but chaining behaviours ie: head down, paw across???

reason being that it sets the dog up to 'get it right' again. eg: if you were getting the dog to heel - you reward in position - the dog doesn't have the opportunity to 'find' that position again. Hence why I like to throw food (lol - i'm a food thrower). In terms of shaping toward an object - it helps the do 'set itself up' to succeed again (and also make it easier for the dog to see 'what' got it the click). As Ness said - it also helps the dog learn to get the position from various angles. eg: I throw the food to the right so that the dog can come into a 'front' position from an angle (and straighten itself up).... No - the click isn't the reward - it is the "mark" - so the dog hears the click and knows that food is coming . Thats why there can be a delay (slight) between the click and the reward... ETA: - as Ness said - it builds up excitement! LOL - mine love it when they get a 'jackpot' - I throw out one piece of food - just as they are looking up - there is another, and another ! LOL

Try and use something 'less sticky' - so he can succeed at 'knocking' it off.... otherwise try the blowing duck tape/ masking tape dulled (stuck onto your skin and ripped off a few times) works well

Interesting HR - just one question though - must they fear you or do you want the respect? I find that you could get the same respect through something like NILIF - you control their universe and I don't think many dogs challenge someone who has good NILIF skills..... If you are talking about respect - then yep - I agree 110% A dog feels confident if they know where they stand - and are comfortable in that position. A dog can be considerably stressed if 'forced' (by lack of leadership) into a top dog position but they are natural subordinates .... well that's what I think

My understanding of those people who refer to themselves as "positive trainers" won't use any of the above equipment, under any circumstances regardless. Apart from "positive" seminars I've been to, I believe Delta holds this attitude/protocol as well. I have heard of a few clients where the "positive" methods have not served to remedy certain problematic behaviours, and they have been referred on .................. So where does that put me? I would consider myself a positive trainer.... but if my choice was between my dog running through a property fence and getting killed and an e collar - I would use an e collar without blinking. That is if I had no other choices (ie: building another fence, keeping the dog confined etc,etc,etc). Sometimes - I think a prong is kinder than a check chain - particularly from what I have seen with the level of corrections people give. Will I use one - I hope I never have to, but I *don't* know what the future holds, so I'm never going to say never. Hmm... and I just thought i'll just say that my dogs for all of their 'masters' positive airy fairy training () - they are extremely well trained and reliable - I don't agree with the fact that 'all/most' positive trained dogs run amok or are not trained or that the only well trained dog can be achieved through my description of a 'traditional' trainer. Dogs learn through consequences- whatever that may be.

I do know a few people who've tried the "purely positive" approach. There's a standing joke that goes around my dog training friends. We reckon you can always spot a purely positive trainer... they're the ones who can't let their dogs offlead because they can't control them. The standard response mouthed by the purely positive brigade is that for any situation you simply need to give the dog a more positive motivation to do something than not to do it. Show me a motivator more "positive" for many dogs than chasing a kangaroo and I'll be very surprised. Bottom line for me is that dogs need to know some behaviour has adverse consequences. You do need some negative reinforcement. and I share many of those sentiments - there is no way a dog can go through life without ever hearing 'no'.....

This is the method that worked for me BL: (copied from another thread):

That would include me, although I prefer the term “balanced trainer”. I think of it this way, as an open minded balanced trainer I have a tool box full of dog training tools and techniques, it includes tasty treats, clickers, praise, body language, NILF, TOT, check chains, e-collars, jealously and pack inclusion/exclusion. As a trainer, why would I want to open that box and toss away everything that wasn't purely positive? How would that make me a better/more effective trainer?? Yes, of course!! Traditional/Balanced trainers use plenty of praise (and possibly treats) in their training. I've also attended a clicker training classes. The classes were good, I learnt a lot and this method suited the young spaniel pup I was training at the time. The instructor had a GSD that was very well behaved, would do all sorts of tricks for the class and looked like a great advert for clicker training. However after awhile I got to know the trainer and her GSD, turns out she couldn't let the GSD off-leash outside her backyard. I was living the USA at the time, there are heaps of deer in rural Virginia and this GSD loved to chase them. The trainer had been working for TWO YEARS to try and build a reliable recall so she could let her dog off leash!! Now she was a way better trainer than me, but I could have cured that dog of deer chasing in two days. That's why I'm a balanced trainer and will use all the tools and techniques in my dog training toolbox, it's just a more effective way to train. Just out of curiosity (and to throw another tangent in the works :D ). What do people think of as "Purely positive"??? Your little tool box sounds very similar to what I have in mine WS - hence the question Also - what do you think 'purely positive' trainers think of when they speak of 'traditionalist' trainers? It seems that many here think that I have a very different picture in my head than what they actually are (eg: these evil green monsters who make their lives a living nightmare??)... Just curious . To me - Purely positive doesn't exist . You achieve nothing with always teaching your dog an alternative. A "Positive trainer" is one that uses 'motivational' methods but doesn't have harsh aversives while training their dogs. Their are reprimands/consequences but not anything physical or 'harsh' ie: a deep growl "AHH" I won't use unless my dog is jumping up on the bench or something similar.... I won't use it if the dog is 'directly engaged' with me - eg: heeling and steps out of position.... A trainer of this sort also usually will not use a check chain, prong, e collar unless certain circumstances call for it... Positive trainers often work on "ignoring incorrect behaviour and rewarding good behaviour". Generally - there is 'no fuss' if the dog makes an error - just placed quietly into position... To me - a traditionalist trainer is one that uses the 'traditional' methods. The dog is taught positions with compulsion rather than lures. The dog is corrected when it disobeys even in training ie: if it doesn't sit, or drops in a sit stay - rather than just being placed back in position, is corrected instead. If the dog gets it right there are still plenty of rewards - sometimes in the form of food, but usually in the form of toys/ pats/ praise. for clarity - by correction I mean a physical correction or harsh verbal correction.... I think this is where much of the confusion comes from??

to mean you were suggesting that the same result can be achieved with every dog regardless of the training method you use but that it is the level the trainer trains to that makes the difference. If that IS your meaning, I disagree. But then, on your last post, it seems we both might be now saying the same thing? It is a matter of working out which method of training that best suits the dog. In some cases, what MOST motivates the dog results in behaviours that are completely intolerable. The latter interpretation is correct ;). It IS a matter of working out what best suits your dog, as well as motivation etc. At all costs - no matter what method we use, I am sure all of us are training so that we are the best thing to the dog and 'obeying' us is the best thing that they can possibly do. What I meant in my first post, is that 'compliance' is dependent on the level you have trained IF you have first found out what is highly motivating for the dog. For example - saying that everything else is in place - if you have only trained the dog to come off lead in the back yard, why should it when there are more distractions..... it doesn't matter what method is used to initially train the come, but a matter of proofing and 'reminding' that yes, indeed, no matter where we are - WE (the trainer) have the best rewards on offer :D Does that make more sense?

It can come down to the "method used" - it much depends on the dog and whether it sees a greater value in "disobeying" than "obeying". Of course, the "level" of training contributes in all factors. But the method for one might not be sufficient for another. I dunno - I still see this level at the trainers discretion. It is up to the owner/trainer to find out how to make the BEST value obeying. To me - it is irrelevant how it is done - once you have found what motivates a dog - you are half way there :D

Unless your dog is 100% proofed then there's still a chance they won't obey you at a critical moment, whether or not you have found that they've responded well in the one instance you mentioned. But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained :D. It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click ;)

I guess so. I am not saying that my dogs are not reliable in any way though. 99.9% of the time if I give them a command they will instantly respond. But I am saying that I do understand that dogs trained for particular services don't have that option. You can't exactly tell a police dog to 'search' for that bomb and have them go - ummm... not today.... whereas in the pet home/ performance home - if we have a dog that says no I won't 'search' today it is not detrimental. Now I know some people are going to say - but what if my dog is about to get hit by a car etc,etc.... yes, I understand that - but I DO think that the way I train is sufficient for them to respond in that scenario - I have living proof as it happened to me a few months ago and they DID respond. IMO - that is not about the method of training, but rather the proofing. Regardless of how the dog was trained, they can refuse a command - you just need to proof it so that they know obeying you is their best option. I guess i'm talking more in the sense of tricks etc - If I ask my dog to sit - I dont' want it to think I can't move a muscle as I may later as it to 'wave' etc. A perfect example is Leo will sit infront of people and if really excited move his front feet..... I want to capture that and put that on cue.... but I don't want them to think that we *can't* do anything but sit here dead still..... LOL - I am terrible at explaining myself - I'm sorry!!! Again - in terms of complex tricks - we usually will not correct our dogs - so I guess I just carry that over to the 'simpler' things also...

Hmm... perhaps fear is not a good word.... it was one that popped into my head at the time ;) No - I don't think that they have fear of the handler or that they have a fear that will affect their work ethic. I firmly believe that dogs trained 'traditionally' work just as much for the teamwork with the handler, the opportunity of rewards etc,etc as any dog trained another way. But I do feel that they are fearful of making errors though. I think that they are concerned of what would happen should they put a foot wrong... not in a bad way - but in a case of shaping it may cause them to be concerned of making 'alternative' choices in case it is the wrong one. For example - a dog *knows* sit - but sits wide.... or sits slow - some may correct that so that the dog learns to sit fast and in the right position.... but how do we know that we corrected the dog for being lazy as opposed to being sore/ thinking about something..... does that make any sense? In terms of correcting because of mouthing etc - ie: in a way that a mother does - no - I don't think that that has any bad consequences on the individual dog, because we haven't asked the dog to do anything, we are merely responding to it's behaviour.... I guess this is where I confuse most people as I am all for corrections in terms of manners, just not in 'training' ie: I was actually working with my dog to sit/drop whatever. No I don't mean in a formal obedience sense - even in terms of obedience around the house - i'd rather take a more 'neutral' approach. Having said that - there are some instances (ie: police dogs) where correction is a must as we can't have the dogs 'questioning' what they are supposed to do. That could be the difference between life and death etc. So yes, these dogs need to know that there are no grey areas. But in all honesty - I don't mind if my dogs question - sometimes you come up with something fantastic instead..... Does that make ANY sense??? ETA: to avoid further confusion - I *am* talking physical corrections here - I will of course 'correct' my dog if they don't do as asked by placing them into that position etc :D

Here ya go! One is of Leo being a git and not going all the way: and the other is his proper bang: I taught it first by teaching a roll over - but only half way. When he gets to the middle - i'll tickle his tummy and C&T when he is still. I'd gradually introduce the word prior to me 'luring' him to roll over..... then stop the tummy tickle etc. He can't get up until i've released him (the sound is poor on the vids!)...... Then gradually I added my own distance and got myself to standing up rather than kneeling/sitting down I always did it from a drop, but Leo *can* do it from a stand, we are just needing a bit more tweaking LOL - he did to a funny thing where he would "bark" straight after I shot him - and although it was spontaneous - I haven't been able to get it consistent

TH - I am sorry if you felt that that is what I was insinuating. I don't think traditional methods should be shunned at all. I think they have their place in the world of dog training. I also didn't say that traditional training involves correcting the dog while it is still learning (whilst I have seen it) and know that this is not the norm, or at all a good example of that form of training. All I was merely trying to ask (and perhaps I didn't word it correct) was how come we can effectively train a dog through corrections, yet no other animal can be trained through this method. Also why we can't/don't (as far as I know) train complex skills through compulsion. I certainly don't see myself as an expert - I was merely asking the question to get answers from those who have more experience than I! As I have said in other posts in this thread - I don't shun any form of training and if I needed to will use a correction chain etc. But as I said - how is it that we can train our dogs with compulsion, yet not any other animal