Luring Vs 'guide, Show, Place'

[melzawelza]

Hi guys,

Hoping for an interesting discussion on the advantages of using luring vs the guide show place method in basic obedience.

I've always used luring (not strict luring always though, if the dog was having trouble understanding I would gently help out, i.e gently put pressure on their lower back while luring with the treat for a sit) to teach basic obedience at work and recently at the NDTF block 1 training I learnt the guide, show, place method.

I think I definitely prefer luring as a first port of call with most dogs, especially for the down. I asked a few instructors why they prefer the guide, show, place and some of the reasons I got was that the dog learns faster and is more used to you handling it.

I'd love to hear people from both sides discuss why they prefer one over the other, and whether they agree with the above statements through their experience.

I'm the kind of person that wants to learn every single technique then choose what works for me. Although I prefer luring I was glad to learn the correct way to place a dog into position and would have no problems using the technique for dogs that aren't food motivated.

One thing I have found trialling the guiding over the last week or so is that many dogs get incredibly stressed when being placed into the down, and some larger dogs are just too strong for me and lock up completely, even if I move very quickly with all my force. Of course little puppies would be much different, i mostly deal with older dogs with no obedience that have gotten a little unruly.

So, what do you tend to use when training dogs? Why do you find that technique is preferable? Would you ALWAYS use that technique no matter what or would you move to the other if you think it would work better for the dog?

[OSoSwift]

I use shaping and luring, and have not - since I started clicker training - used guiding (as in hands on) and placing.

I find that enabling them to do it themselves either with shaping or luring enables them to get the muscle memory required to do the movement more quickly. Because of the fact the do it themselves I find that they will offer it very quickly and therefore learn at a much more rapid rate than a dog placed into the same position.

Trying to place a dog into a down can cause stress and as dogs are oppositionally defiant it will cause them to push against the pressure, rather than go with it and before you know it there is a struggle brewing. So essentially you are teaching your dog to respond in exactly the opposite way than what you require.

I have in the past trained that way, but now it is never a method I use as I have had a much higher level of success with what I do now.

I do believe you never stop learning and if a better method came along I would be happy to try it.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Rommi n Lewis

[Zug Zug]

Luring and shaping here too.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

yep luring and shaping. i feel that if i use placing too often then all i am doing is teaching the dog to wait for me to put my hands on them. this takes a lot of undoing unless i am doing it the wrong way.

[melzawelza]

Good to see i'm not the only one that prefers it! Pretty much everything you said, Rommi & Lewis, is the way I feel about luring and shaping. It was for this reason I was a little perplexed when I was told that the dog learns the command faster with the guiding. I always thought that if they were using their brains and figuring it out themselves they would pick it up much quicker?

Edited May 23, 2010 by melzawelza

[Erny]

I use both. Often luring first as this gives the dog the idea of what you want and can help remove that "help!! what are you trying to do!! resistance/panic response. But I like to introduce a combo and then GSP only. Which means the dog will learn each, singularly and a combo. Shaping I will use if necessary.

Teaches the dog to follow the hand and also teaches the dog it's ok to be 'put'.

What I actually use to teach the exercise depends on the dog and what works best for it. I don't think there's a "this method is faster learning than the other" factor, simply because it does depend on the dog you're working with at the time.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Erny

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Good to see i'm not the only one that prefers it! Pretty much everything you said, Rommi & Lewis, is the way I feel about luring and shaping. It was for this reason I was a little perplexed when I was told that the dog learns the command faster with the guiding. I always thought that if they were using their brains and figuring it out themselves they would pick it up much quicker?

they might not pick it up quicker but they will remember it for much much longer. it tends to stay with them if they learn by doing

[alpha bet]

The drop can be a difficult one for older dogs that I deal with - If they have any particular issues then a touch on the wither can be a real problem to some dogs.

Puppies are pretty easy - they tend to just follow the food down also if you do want to use a touch on the wither to guide a happy pup to the down position this is usually ok, however a nervy pup is best to just lure and if you touch they will turn there head and worry.

I prefer to use the food to let the dog follow my hand down into the drop - It is always difficult if the dog is not relaxed - the shoulders tend to tighten and the front legs wont fold and drop. If this is the case I reward a head down position. Amazing how then after a fairly short period of time even the most restrictive dog will start to accept the head down and then suddenly break at the elbow of one front leg - reward that and pretty soon you will get the drop just from the lure alone.

It is definately better to get the drop from just the lure than by touch - but like with everything you have to consider each dog to his own.

[melzawelza]

I use both. Often luring first as this gives the dog the idea of what you want and can help remove that "help!! what are you trying to do!! resistance/panic response. But I like to introduce a combo and then GSP only. Which means the dog will learn each, singularly and a combo. Shaping I will use if necessary.

Teaches the dog to follow the hand and also teaches the dog it's ok to be 'put'.

What I actually use to teach the exercise depends on the dog and what works best for it. I don't think there's a "this method is faster learning than the other" factor, simply because it does depend on the dog you're working with at the time.

Cool, thanks for that Erny. There's a dog i'm currently training that loses interest in treats very quickly, so I tried the GSP method for the down with him and it worked quite well. Although he clearly doesn't enjoy being placed, he LOVES the release after and we have a big cuddle. That was one dog where I found it worked ok, and you're right, it's about the individual dog.

I haven't got to a point with him yet where he can do it on his own yet. I'm kind of just feeling my way as I don't know when I should try saying the word without guiding him. If i'm not really quick he locks up so I don't want to say it and wait, only for him to have time to lock up and struggle. It's at this point where i start to think 'Luring is just so much EASIER!!', but that may just be my inexperience in the technique.

Good to see i'm not the only one that prefers it! Pretty much everything you said, Rommi & Lewis, is the way I feel about luring and shaping. It was for this reason I was a little perplexed when I was told that the dog learns the command faster with the guiding. I always thought that if they were using their brains and figuring it out themselves they would pick it up much quicker?

they might not pick it up quicker but they will remember it for much much longer. it tends to stay with them if they learn by doing

Very interesting!!

[corvus]

Do people still use GSP?? I thought that went out with check chains in teaching. It kinda strikes me as a hammer and anvil approach... I think even luring is a bit problematic, although I still use it. I'm transferring all my luring to targeting, now. I almost exclusively shape with Erik and don't use food or my hands to tell him where to be. He watches my face and gains clues and works it out on his own. I love this approach because if he learns it on his own he loves the new behaviour and retains it better than if I lure it. Plus I get a kick out of watching the wheels in his head turning as he thinks through the problem. Yesterday I started teaching him to weave between my legs and he got halfway there in under a minute with nothing more than my legs spread apart and an initial flick of my eyes towards the direction he should move.

My other dog is really tactile and I sometimes give him tactile clues, like touching the body part I want him to move. I'm putting cues to all of it so he can understand what he's doing. He's a bit of a weird one. He isn't aware of a lot of things that go on around his body and gets so focused during training that it's hard to get him to notice things other than me. He gets frustrated if he is getting rewards he doesn't understand. I've had him throw himself on the ground in defeat despite a high reward rate because he doesn't know what he's doing to get the rewards. Touch seems to help him, but ultimately I want thim to be aware of what he's doing and know how to get the reward. I like the learning process to be nice and operant. I think the dogs enjoy it more, I enjoy it more, and it's a better mental workout for them, and they are more flexible if they have to think for themselves. And retention is better.

[Cosmolo]

I like to use both- i find its much easier to get rid of the lure if the dog has done a little G/S/P and some dogs prefer G/S/P just as others prefer to be lured. I like shaping for it as well but many owners are a little impatient or their timing is not ideal so luring and G/S/P are better options.

[pipsqueak]

Do people still use GSP?? I thought that went out with check chains in teaching. It kinda strikes me as a hammer and anvil approach... I think even luring is a bit problematic, although I still use it. I'm transferring all my luring to targeting, now. I almost exclusively shape with Erik and don't use food or my hands to tell him where to be. He watches my face and gains clues and works it out on his own. I love this approach because if he learns it on his own he loves the new behaviour and retains it better than if I lure it. Plus I get a kick out of watching the wheels in his head turning as he thinks through the problem. Yesterday I started teaching him to weave between my legs and he got halfway there in under a minute with nothing more than my legs spread apart and an initial flick of my eyes towards the direction he should move.

My other dog is really tactile and I sometimes give him tactile clues, like touching the body part I want him to move. I'm putting cues to all of it so he can understand what he's doing. He's a bit of a weird one. He isn't aware of a lot of things that go on around his body and gets so focused during training that it's hard to get him to notice things other than me. He gets frustrated if he is getting rewards he doesn't understand. I've had him throw himself on the ground in defeat despite a high reward rate because he doesn't know what he's doing to get the rewards. Touch seems to help him, but ultimately I want thim to be aware of what he's doing and know how to get the reward. I like the learning process to be nice and operant. I think the dogs enjoy it more, I enjoy it more, and it's a better mental workout for them, and they are more flexible if they have to think for themselves. And retention is better.

Yes, some of us are almost "forced" to use GSP by our dogs, otherwise there is no other way to make them understand and they get extremely frustrated. With my first dog, I was determined to use lures & positive only. Well, she had zero interest in food, and no concept of following food as a lure. You could place high value treats (BBQ chicken, raw liver) to her nose to try to lure her into a sit. She would happily watch as the treat moved away from her. Over time (2+ years) she has been taught/learnt to follow a lure. In those early days, GSP gave me something to reward. Don't get me wrong, I am all for luring and free-shaping but she has taught me it doesn't work for all dogs. I have occasionally played with trying to fre-shape her, and it frustrates both of us. She is not a dog that will naturally offer behaviours - and even rewarding the smallest behaviour doesn't keep my reward rate high enough. We progress much more quickly and happily with GSP and luring. She was adopted when she was 12-18 months old and had been in the shelter between 3-6 months. She initially had to "learn how to learn", as shown by learning to follow a lure. She is still not very food-orientated, but enough to work with - have also tried toys and tugs, but again, very very low interest. My other dog is a different story - happy to be lured, happy to try shaping, as long as the food and praise keep coming.

[Erny]

With my first dog, I was determined to use lures & positive only. Well, she had zero interest in food, and no concept of following food as a lure. You could place high value treats (BBQ chicken, raw liver) to her nose to try to lure her into a sit. She would happily watch as the treat moved away from her. Over time (2+ years) she has been taught/learnt to follow a lure. In those early days, GSP gave me something to reward. Don't get me wrong, I am all for luring and free-shaping but she has taught me it doesn't work for all dogs. I have occasionally played with trying to fre-shape her, and it frustrates both of us. She is not a dog that will naturally offer behaviours - and even rewarding the smallest behaviour doesn't keep my reward rate high enough. We progress much more quickly and happily with GSP and luring.

Futuredogtrainer - you have acquired valuable knowledge at the 'paws' of your two dogs. IE That one method does not work for all dogs. Some people who have experience with only a very small number of dogs might use a method that they prefer and because it works for them, they are unable to imagine the different dogs (and different problems) there are around where the dogs can be very resistant to "a" particular method (or even some particular training tools/aids). And so they herald their preferred method (and/or tool) and often actively resist, argue and pooh hoo other methods (and/or tools) which are less to their liking.

As a "future dog trainer" you will learn that the (IMO) best approach is an open-mind and to explore each dog for the individual that it is. And you've already learned this by such a small sample of dogs. They teach us much, heh?

Edited May 23, 2010 by Erny

[pipsqueak]

Thanks Erny - I couldn't agree more. I call her my "L-plate" dog. Having said that, I am certain that she has taught me much more about training than I have taught her. Many, many times that is usually how "not" to teach something! I will think through and plan how to teach something, and then she will show me exactly where the flaws in my training plan are All good though.

[JulesP]

I usually get at least one pup each class that will not drop using luring. None of them have been stressed about being guided. Usually only takes a couple of guides and they will then follow the lure down anyhow.

Once the pups know the positions and decide not to comply I then give the handlers the option of either using a NRM or guiding. I am not fussed either way as long as I don't hear 'sit, sit, sit, sit....'.

[Erny]

I usually get at least one pup each class that will not drop using luring. None of them have been stressed about being guided. Usually only takes a couple of guides and they will then follow the lure down anyhow.

Once the pups know the positions and decide not to comply I then give the handlers the option of either using a NRM or guiding. I am not fussed either way as long as I don't hear 'sit, sit, sit, sit....'.

My highlights.

LOL .... similar here, JulesP.

Some people run down methods/tools using the "old fashioned" type speech, as though "old fashioned" is bad or something to be scoffed at just because it has been around for decades and might not be the flavour of the month for a number. I've seen the term "old fashioned" used in negative context to describe some methods by those who don't like or agree with them quite a lot in a UK dog forum to know that this terminology can be used in a propaganda type sense. Always strikes me as some sort of 'argument' when the arguer hasn't got much in the way of good reasons to debate. .

There is a reason why things stay around long enough to become "old fashioned" . Besides, training shouldn't be about fashion or trend. It should be about what works best for the dog and dog-owner.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Erny

[corvus]

Well, I find it hard to get my head around. I'm yet to meet a dog that couldn't learn to target in one training session, for example. It must be about the easiest thing in the world to teach. If they can target you can lure them. Or you start off with clicking for eye contact and once they are doing that nicely you start backing away from them and clicking when they follow. It's just another short step to have them follow your hand, or your eyes, or a slight lean of your body.

I have a short dog, and they are notorious for being difficult to lure into a down. Normally you can get them to do it if you sit on the ground and lure them under your leg. Or you put a hand in front of their back legs so they can't sidestep and lure it that way. Or just capture it. Dogs lie down naturally all the time, after all.

This is a revelation to me. I honestly thought no one much used that method anymore. Consider me educated.

[Cosmolo]

Lots of dogs can't target right away- especially if they have had no training before and simply don't understand the learning concept- i find that with these dogs using G/S/P to give me the opportunity to reward really quickly, multiple times- is easier for them to understand initially.

I find the dogs that are most reliable with their drops had at least 2 different methods used with them at varying stages.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

With my first dog, I was determined to use lures & positive only. Well, she had zero interest in food, and no concept of following food as a lure. You could place high value treats (BBQ chicken, raw liver) to her nose to try to lure her into a sit. She would happily watch as the treat moved away from her. Over time (2+ years) she has been taught/learnt to follow a lure. In those early days, GSP gave me something to reward. Don't get me wrong, I am all for luring and free-shaping but she has taught me it doesn't work for all dogs. I have occasionally played with trying to fre-shape her, and it frustrates both of us. She is not a dog that will naturally offer behaviours - and even rewarding the smallest behaviour doesn't keep my reward rate high enough. We progress much more quickly and happily with GSP and luring.

Futuredogtrainer - you have acquired valuable knowledge at the 'paws' of your two dogs. IE That one method does not work for all dogs. Some people who have experience with only a very small number of dogs might use a method that they prefer and because it works for them, they are unable to imagine the different dogs (and different problems) there are around where the dogs can be very resistant to "a" particular method (or even some particular training tools/aids). And so they herald their preferred method (and/or tool) and often actively resist, argue and pooh hoo other methods (and/or tools) which are less to their liking.

As a "future dog trainer" you will learn that the (IMO) best approach is an open-mind and to explore each dog for the individual that it is. And you've already learned this by such a small sample of dogs. They teach us much, heh?

agree with this 100%. this is what makes great trainers stand out from ordinary trainers IMO.

[corvus]

Pick me up off the floor and dust me off. I don't know why I'm so gob-smacked.