Excrutiatingly Stubborn Dog

[Uncle Zombie]

Have you heard that 43% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

[poodlefan]

I didn't know what kind of behaviour you were talking about. My dogs know loads of cues, but most of them are just for fun and I haven't put any effort at all into making them fluent. Other cues I consider a fair bit more important that they are fluent. I take it you were talking about the latter (sit, down, recall and so on). It depends on why they didn't respond. An extra cue seems to take care of most of them. If it's Erik being a twerp it depends on what he's doing instead of responding to the cue.

Yep. If the behaviour is "fluent" why does the reason for non-response matter?

I don't know why this should be so controversial.

Who said it was? I simply don't understand why you place so many qualifiers on getting a response to a fluent (read trained) cued behaviour. Is there no behaviour that you've trained and dont shrug off non-response to? If the dog knows what you want and doesn't do it, why not either insist on the behaviour or provide a consequence for non-compliance.

Seriously, you try to enforce a behaviour with Erik. I don't have the patience for it. I've spent 10 minutes playing silly buggers with him before trying to just lay a finger on him so I can enforce it.

Maybe what you're doing requires a rethink.

Who said the only method of enforcing behaviour is to get hands on the dog? If your dog won't come in the dog park, do you spend 10 minutes playing with him trying to get his leash on? I"d be (with pre-planning) bolting hard out the gate and leaving the bugger to stew for a bit (assuming he cares that you're not there that is). If he didn't come in the back door when I called him, he'd be staring a shut door for 10 minutes with me playing a loud and exciting game with Kivi. It's called consequences.

You can't have an obedient dog if you don't enforce commands! F*** obedience. I don't want it.

Why not? Didn't you want to do agility with Erik?

It's clear you regard "training" as an ongoing process of interacting with your dog. Many folk also expect "training" to produce a reliable response to a cued behaviour. I think it's important when you GIVE training advice that you establish what the person wants from their dog. I think you could number those who don't want an obedient dog on the fingers of one hand.

Edited May 26, 2011 by poodlefan

[Aidan3]

I suppose it depends a bit on what you would call a consequence? In a more technical sense, a consequence is something that is effected contingent upon a response. In other words, a response produces a consequence - something is added or taken from the environment when the behaviour happens; e.g owner calls dog, dog continues to check pee-mail, owner pulls dog in on long line.

Extinction is a failure to provide a reinforcing consequence. When you are free-shaping you don't provide a consequence for the wrong response, you just fail to provide a reinforcer. The wrong response is under extinction, and correct responses are reinforced.

So what is "non-compliance"? It is always "some other response". If that "other response" is reinforced, we have a problem. If it's not, there is really no need for a consequence.

I hear some people talk about punishing disobedience. Disobedience isn't a response, so it can't be punished. A dog wouldn't understand the concept. You can teach them to avoid punishment (by responding appropriately to your cue), and it would be clearer if that was the way it was talked about, I think.

[bedazzledx2]

LOL a big part of my training is the collar grab! I love clicker (and marker) training and shaping but conditioning puppies to hands on is very important IMO. I prefer to target train or shape rather than physically guiding but I think every dog should be ok with hands on.

I think some dogs deal with hands on 'guiding' into position training better than others. It doesn't bother Diesel at all - you can push, pull, place Diesel however you like and it doesn't worry him. His breeders use the guide, show, place method with all their dogs. But the Kelpies don't cope so well with being manhandled and deal much better with hands off methods. They are much more sensitive to handler pressure and distance and body language.

I think that is true. My last dog sounds more like your Diesel, my mally like your kelpie. I do use guiding with her, in a fashion, but tend to ask her to target to my hand rather than physically moving her.

But on the other hand, I think you still have to teach them to tolerate being manhandled to a degree, even if they dislike it. If a strange person ever has to handle my girl, I don't want her stressing out, or even worse, taking offence and nailing them in the arm. I remember that as a pup she looked very shocked and upset when I first took her to the boarding kennel and the attendant moved her by grabbing her collar, as we just didn't do that at home. So when we got home, we had to train her that this was OK.

[Erny]

Have you heard that 43% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Have you got a linky for the stats on that?

[Lab_Rat]

You know, sometimes things really are simple, obedience means doing as you are told, that is all. If your dog doesn't do what you tell it to it is disobedient.... If you make excuses for your dogs based on their breeds you'll never progress, treat them like dogs and fix each behaviour if it is a problem.

totally agree! Would also add that it is worth having a good think before deciding that something is not a problem & doesn't need to be fixed. Unless you can 100% guarantee effective management, lots of things people choose to live with actually do need to be fixed.

Sometimes tackling one thing thoroughly makes tackling other things much easier.

Vickie - I totally agree with the bolded part of your quote! If a particular behaviour doesnt have any negatives - why try and "fix" it

Rev Jo - While I would like to not base my dogs "behaviours" on her breed, having two very different breeds sometimes makes it a tad difficult. I see that my girls think differently, react differently and go about things in a different manner. I quite often feel inadequate an owner for my ridgy girl, as I cant figure out how to think outside the box when it comes to training her To the point of upsetting me to tears!

With the Kelpie its soooo easy, almost too easy!

So perhaps I do need to stop obsessing with the "breed"?!? And perhaps I also need to expand my repertoire of dealing-with-difficult-dog books

I definitely need to figure how to "unlock" my brains way of thinking - so I GET different things, like "training in drive".....Im embarrassed to admit, I dont get it!!!

But at least I added the disclaimer of not being a dog trainers big toe in my last post!!!

Edited May 26, 2011 by Lab_Rat

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

fake statistics - yup.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1194&bih=796&q=statistics+on+fake+statistics&aq=f&aqi=g-j1&aql=&oq=

Leela17

about the pill thing. Try embedding the pill in a sardine (my dog and I like the Brunswich ones in olive oil). Or if you have some fatty bacon (from the butcher not supermarket), cook it up till it's crispy, spoon off the fat into a tin or china bowl, let cool until safe to touch (goes white again) and smear the tablet in that. It's hard enough to get off your fingers, let alone the tablet, and my dog just inhaled her last lot of bacon fat coated pink worming tablets. We didn't even get to the bowl of sardines.

Is interesting what JoeK says about GSD being easy to fire up, and yet Leela17's doesn't seem interested.

I think a bit of Premack - ie you need to do what I want so you can get what you want for the dog, and generalization. Ie dog club training starts when we get in the car, behave nicely - we proceed, start barking or jumping around - we stop. Get to car park, and get out nicely - we proceeed. Dog pulls - we stop until dog stops pulling and behaves nicely... I've let that slip a bit with my dog. Ie fine for obedience/heelwork class we can go on loose lead but for agility night - pulls like a train. And cos I'm carrying so much crap - I don't want to stop. Sigh. will have to sort that - or make two trips one for the crap and one for the dog (with only proceeding on loose lead not pulling lead).

I also have a bit of generalisation of habitat problem with my dog. The only place she seems a bit vague about what "sit" means is at the back door. Ie I don't open the door until she sits. But she doesn't seem to understand the word. So I put her in a sit (one hand on back end, and one hand under chest) or praise like party if she sits on her own. But she's still S L O W. Unless she's really busting and then she's sitting and barking... sigh.

So what does Leela17's dog get excited about? What does it choose to do when it's ignoring her?

[OSoSwift]

I've got it, I'll only ever ask my dog to do something that I know she'll do every time and then her disobedience with recall won't exist and then she'll be 100% obedient

DING DING DING

we have a winner

*click*

treat

I think that deserves a jackpot myself

I suppose it depends a bit on what you would call a consequence? In a more technical sense, a consequence is something that is effected contingent upon a response. In other words, a response produces a consequence - something is added or taken from the environment when the behaviour happens; e.g owner calls dog, dog continues to check pee-mail, owner pulls dog in on long line.

Extinction is a failure to provide a reinforcing consequence. When you are free-shaping you don't provide a consequence for the wrong response, you just fail to provide a reinforcer. The wrong response is under extinction, and correct responses are reinforced.

So what is "non-compliance"? It is always "some other response". If that "other response" is reinforced, we have a problem. If it's not, there is really no need for a consequence.

I hear some people talk about punishing disobedience. Disobedience isn't a response, so it can't be punished. A dog wouldn't understand the concept. You can teach them to avoid punishment (by responding appropriately to your cue), and it would be clearer if that was the way it was talked about, I think.

Um nope not really clearer, but I will go back and read it again, it's been a long day

Have you heard that 43% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Have you got a linky for the stats on that?

Every person has some things they can live with and some things they can't. What those lists are varies greatly from person to person.

For me there are some instances when I need my dog to do it and do it now or their life will be in danger. Them choosing not listen just cannot happen. Therefore I cannot train soley with the principal if they don't do it , oh well I will train it more tomorrow because well, they may not make it until tomorrow. They have a consequence. With mine yelling at them in a grumpy voice is more than enough of a consequense so if they don't listen I roar, they snap to attention. Do I like to do it, no most certainly not. However If I wish to avoid a snake bite they must listen when they are told leave it. Three times this summer it worked.

Edited May 26, 2011 by OSoSwift

[Kavik]

My GSD is my most difficult dog to motivate too. But he has allergies so doesn't feel 100% He is also pretty cruisy and easy to live with and since I am not trying to train him for competition anymore I don't do a lot of training with him.

[Aidan3]

I suppose it depends a bit on what you would call a consequence? In a more technical sense, a consequence is something that is effected contingent upon a response. In other words, a response produces a consequence - something is added or taken from the environment when the behaviour happens; e.g owner calls dog, dog continues to check pee-mail, owner pulls dog in on long line.

Extinction is a failure to provide a reinforcing consequence. When you are free-shaping you don't provide a consequence for the wrong response, you just fail to provide a reinforcer. The wrong response is under extinction, and correct responses are reinforced.

So what is "non-compliance"? It is always "some other response". If that "other response" is reinforced, we have a problem. If it's not, there is really no need for a consequence.

I hear some people talk about punishing disobedience. Disobedience isn't a response, so it can't be punished. A dog wouldn't understand the concept. You can teach them to avoid punishment (by responding appropriately to your cue), and it would be clearer if that was the way it was talked about, I think.

Um nope not really clearer, but I will go back and read it again, it's been a long day

Basically, unless whatever the dog is doing is being reinforced, instead of what you asked him to do(or it puts him in immediate danger), there is not a lot of justification for providing a consequence for non-compliance. If he's just sitting there like a stunned mullet, there is no reason to provide a consequence. Failing to give a reinforcer is not a consequence, it's a "do nothing".

There is a school of thought that says we should provide a consequence for disobedience no matter what. I would argue that unless the dog clearly understands that he can avoid the consequence by complying with the cue, then there is no justification for this approach. Given that it's highly likely that the only reason the dog did nothing in response to your cue was that he didn't understand what he had to do, or hadn't been reinforced often enough for it, I would not want to further complicate things by adding extraneous consequences that may only serve to confuse the dog.

We can build extremely reliable behaviours without anything more than reinforcement, extinction and response-prevention. See http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/221011-weave-proofing/ for an example.

[WreckitWhippet]

I've got it, I'll only ever ask my dog to do something that I know she'll do every time and then her disobedience with recall won't exist and then she'll be 100% obedient

DING DING DING

we have a winner

*click*

treat

thanks for the laugh

[corvus]

Yep. If the behaviour is "fluent" why does the reason for non-response matter?

Sometimes E would rather not put his butt or belly on the cold wet ground. What I do then is different to what I might do if I think I've possibly found an area where he's not fluent after all, or if he's being obstinate or something.

I simply don't understand why you place so many qualifiers on getting a response to a fluent (read trained) cued behaviour. Is there no behaviour that you've trained and dont shrug off non-response to? If the dog knows what you want and doesn't do it, why not either insist on the behaviour or provide a consequence for non-compliance.

Who said I don't insist on the behaviour? Who said I shrug off non-compliance when the behaviour is fluent? I don't just go "oh well, he doesn't want to" and give up. I change the situation and cue again and get the behaviour. I thought I made that clear in my last post.

Seriously, you try to enforce a behaviour with Erik. I don't have the patience for it. I've spent 10 minutes playing silly buggers with him before trying to just lay a finger on him so I can enforce it.

Maybe what you're doing requires a rethink.

No kidding! Why is this so difficult to understand? I had a problem; I fixed it. He doesn't do this anymore because I taught him to come inside on cue, which he does. Problem solved, no enforcement required.

Who said the only method of enforcing behaviour is to get hands on the dog? If your dog won't come in the dog park, do you spend 10 minutes playing with him trying to get his leash on? I"d be (with pre-planning) bolting hard out the gate and leaving the bugger to stew for a bit (assuming he cares that you're not there that is). If he didn't come in the back door when I called him, he'd be staring a shut door for 10 minutes with me playing a loud and exciting game with Kivi. It's called consequences.

Wow, you're on a roll with the assumptions, aren't you? The little bugger has stewed plenty of times. It might get him inside, but it never reduced the likelihood of him balking again at some later date. So I question if it really was a consequence, actually.

You can't have an obedient dog if you don't enforce commands! F*** obedience. I don't want it.

Why not? Didn't you want to do agility with Erik?

I'm not even sure what obedience is anymore. I was happy to say that I had obedient dogs when they are 98-99% reliable, but apparently I have disobedient dogs. If that's the case, I don't want an obedient dog. I am very, very happy with 98% likely to respond correctly. I like hunting out that 2%. It's more fun than having perfect obedience. If I wanted perfect obedience I shouldn't have spitz breeds, but that's not to say I can't have very reliable spitzes.

It's clear you regard "training" as an ongoing process of interacting with your dog. Many folk also expect "training" to produce a reliable response to a cued behaviour.

Apparently you missed the "My dogs are 98% reliable, if that's disobedient than I guess they are disobedient" rant despite quoting from the middle of it. Is 98% reliable not good enough for most people? I say to them, stand on a chair, and tell your dog to sit. Lie down and tell them to sit on your hand. Stand 10m away from them and tell them to sit. Tell them to sit while they are walking away from you. Tell them to sit when they are running across a field. I think most people would be surprised how 'disobedient' their dogs are when really tested. I test mine extensively, because it's fun. I love the look on their faces as they comprehend what I asked and try to figure out what the right response is. I got Erik to stand on my belly and then cued a down one day. He was a bit unsure, but he got it. Maybe it's a frivolous trick to some, but it's a fluent behaviour to me.

[corvus]

I hear some people talk about punishing disobedience. Disobedience isn't a response, so it can't be punished. A dog wouldn't understand the concept. You can teach them to avoid punishment (by responding appropriately to your cue), and it would be clearer if that was the way it was talked about, I think.

Isn't the rule of thumb if a dead dog can do it, it's not a behaviour? ;) I have punished a behaviour I got instead of the behaviour I asked for. It was a behaviour I really, really wanted to make abundantly clear was absolutely not on. I've only done it once and I've no way of telling if it was necessary or not. Most alternative behaviours I don't reinforce one way or the other and they go extinct.

[JoeK]

fake statistics - yup.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1194&bih=796&q=statistics+on+fake+statistics&aq=f&aqi=g-j1&aql=&oq=

Leela17

about the pill thing. Try embedding the pill in a sardine (my dog and I like the Brunswich ones in olive oil). Or if you have some fatty bacon (from the butcher not supermarket), cook it up till it's crispy, spoon off the fat into a tin or china bowl, let cool until safe to touch (goes white again) and smear the tablet in that. It's hard enough to get off your fingers, let alone the tablet, and my dog just inhaled her last lot of bacon fat coated pink worming tablets. We didn't even get to the bowl of sardines.

Is interesting what JoeK says about GSD being easy to fire up, and yet Leela17's doesn't seem interested.

I think a bit of Premack - ie you need to do what I want so you can get what you want for the dog, and generalization. Ie dog club training starts when we get in the car, behave nicely - we proceed, start barking or jumping around - we stop. Get to car park, and get out nicely - we proceeed. Dog pulls - we stop until dog stops pulling and behaves nicely... I've let that slip a bit with my dog. Ie fine for obedience/heelwork class we can go on loose lead but for agility night - pulls like a train. And cos I'm carrying so much crap - I don't want to stop. Sigh. will have to sort that - or make two trips one for the crap and one for the dog (with only proceeding on loose lead not pulling lead).

I also have a bit of generalisation of habitat problem with my dog. The only place she seems a bit vague about what "sit" means is at the back door. Ie I don't open the door until she sits. But she doesn't seem to understand the word. So I put her in a sit (one hand on back end, and one hand under chest) or praise like party if she sits on her own. But she's still S L O W. Unless she's really busting and then she's sitting and barking... sigh.

So what does Leela17's dog get excited about? What does it choose to do when it's ignoring her?

The German Shepherd Dog is working dog and you having look on the breed standards tell you this. The dog must be good for companion animal to protection dog so you buying good Shepherd pup should having the traits for training career in any of this roles and for this to be happening, the dog needing good nerve, courage and the prey drive.

The book on the breed standards for Shepherd dog doesnt say he should be show dog and showing should be demonstration of the best Shepherd Dogs who follow breed standards, but they dont doing this and they show for the conformation so what happening is the working traits is not important for the show breeding so they breed for the ribbon which stuff up the breed traits for working dog with no prey drive, no courage and weak nerve is what happens, then someone buying these pups like the Leela17 and has no drive, is hard dog to train and experience to owning this type of dog is not what proper Shepherd Dog is like, so all the good bits for making beautiful smart Shepherd pet dog is missing for my opinion is very sad?.

So that is why the Leela17 dog will be having no drive and motivation because is different type of Shepherd Dog from a proper Shepherd which is a working dog. I am not talking on the bloodline here, there is plenty V rated show dog line in Germany having better drive than half the working line dogs here, is about knowing is taking more than male and female mating to produce a good dog on the breeding.

Joe

[Keira&Phoenix]

Who said the only method of enforcing behaviour is to get hands on the dog? If your dog won't come in the dog park, do you spend 10 minutes playing with him trying to get his leash on? I"d be (with pre-planning) bolting hard out the gate and leaving the bugger to stew for a bit (assuming he cares that you're not there that is). If he didn't come in the back door when I called him, he'd be staring a shut door for 10 minutes with me playing a loud and exciting game with Kivi. It's called consequences.

Just wondering if Nekhbet thinks this is also pack separation...? Because leaving one dog outside for 10 minutes while you play a loud game inside with the other is worse than crating the dog for 2 minutes....

I think this is a good idea mind you, and I have at times walked inside and shut the door if the girls won't come in when I want (they come and sit at the door if I do that LOL) but just wondering if Nekhbet would consider this under the same category as time outs.

[Vickie]

No kidding! Why is this so difficult to understand? I had a problem; I fixed it. He doesn't do this anymore because I taught him to come inside on cue, which he does. Problem solved, no enforcement required.

so what if you're at someone else's house? And he can't come inside?

If he chooses to baulk then & you can't catch him, what would you do?

Is the problem fixed?

You know, I don't think anyone judges you, or anyone else, if your dogs are not 100% reliable. I am more than willing to admit that none of mine are 100% in a number of areas.

People judge you because you regularly contradict yourself in your posts. You label your dogs one way and give anecdotes which do not match your labels.

People judge you because you regularly give advice on things you are yet to achieve with any of your own dogs...and when you get called on it, your excuse is often not that you can't do it, but can't be bothered doing it or have chosen a work around instead.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Make sure my jackpot is roast chicken pleasy

Going back to dealing with different breeds, you do have to factor in breed characteristics when training but you shouldn't use breed as an excuse for not getting results.

[wuffles]

I'm not sure I really understand the concept of 'not using breed as an excuse'. There are going to be dogs that are much more difficult to train than others, and I don't see the shame in admitting that. It would be silly of me to expect the same results with the same training between my two dogs, who have very, VERY different personalities.

I'm not saying it should absolve people of responsibility, but saying a dog is x breed which has made it harder to train than y dog who is y breed makes sense to me.

[JoeK]

I suppose it depends a bit on what you would call a consequence? In a more technical sense, a consequence is something that is effected contingent upon a response. In other words, a response produces a consequence - something is added or taken from the environment when the behaviour happens; e.g owner calls dog, dog continues to check pee-mail, owner pulls dog in on long line.

Extinction is a failure to provide a reinforcing consequence. When you are free-shaping you don't provide a consequence for the wrong response, you just fail to provide a reinforcer. The wrong response is under extinction, and correct responses are reinforced.

So what is "non-compliance"? It is always "some other response". If that "other response" is reinforced, we have a problem. If it's not, there is really no need for a consequence.

I hear some people talk about punishing disobedience. Disobedience isn't a response, so it can't be punished. A dog wouldn't understand the concept. You can teach them to avoid punishment (by responding appropriately to your cue), and it would be clearer if that was the way it was talked about, I think.

Um nope not really clearer, but I will go back and read it again, it's been a long day

Basically, unless whatever the dog is doing is being reinforced, instead of what you asked him to do(or it puts him in immediate danger), there is not a lot of justification for providing a consequence for non-compliance. If he's just sitting there like a stunned mullet, there is no reason to provide a consequence. Failing to give a reinforcer is not a consequence, it's a "do nothing".

There is a school of thought that says we should provide a consequence for disobedience no matter what. I would argue that unless the dog clearly understands that he can avoid the consequence by complying with the cue, then there is no justification for this approach. Given that it's highly likely that the only reason the dog did nothing in response to your cue was that he didn't understand what he had to do, or hadn't been reinforced often enough for it, I would not want to further complicate things by adding extraneous consequences that may only serve to confuse the dog.

We can build extremely reliable behaviours without anything more than reinforcement, extinction and response-prevention. See http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/221011-weave-proofing/ for an example.

I agree with this with dogs of the right trait for this type of training, but is not reliable on every dog where consequence works better on some traits and cant training every dog best from one training method doesnt work, it depends on the individual dog character what is best working.

If a dog having good focus from food and toy drive, this dogs you can training without consequence easy, but dogs with low drive and tunnel vision on the bad behaviour is easier to train from consequence in the training also. Drive is born in the dog, you can build drive to a point but you cant put drive in a dog for handler focus for all distractions when the dog has low drive on the genetics and the training must be suiting the type of dog.

Joe

Edited May 27, 2011 by JoeK

[Diva]

There are breed differences but I think we sometimes use them as an excuse. I have sighthounds, not the most hard-headed of the sightound breeds but still one waaay down the bottom of the list of 'trainable' by most judgements.

With the exception of recall in the presence of prey, which I haven't pinged yet for all of them, they train very well. But only when I really train as I know how to, in a measured and structured way that takes advantage of how they learn. I used to have a working breed - they were much more eager to please, quicker to train but not really any easier to train well. I found them easier to stuff up really as they hated making a mistake. Not sure the 'zoi think they can make mistakes, they know it's always my fault, LOL.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Diva