heeelp! Crate training; gradual vs. sudden

tex123

Using one word to describe a dogs behavior saves time.

And in my line of work - canine behaviour consults and training - using "one word" to describe a dog's behaviour can cost them their home, or their life. So hopefully you can see another's reasoning behind it. The time spent describing a dog's actions can honestly make a world of difference.  But you're right, this was orignally about crate training.

However, I sense just a *little* too much sarcasm now to wish to take part in any more conversation as I don't get the feeling there is any serious intent behind this posting.

Again, we don't seem to be on the same page, My fault, I should have said "working intelligence"...I agree that all dogs have the same basic brain structure (one breed is no "smarter" than another) they do have differing genetic predispositions due to breeding. Thus, a Pit is harder to "out" than a Lab, Yes, I know they can be taught to out nicely, but it is HARDER to teach them this, because its not in their "Blood"

The Intelligence of Dogs; Stanley Coren  1994

I am also aware that during the time you mention, and especially prior to that time frame, "snatch and jerk" was the way most people and many "professionals" trained, but the fact remains, whether you use a clicker or a club, it takes longer to train the recall with a Pit than it does a Lab

This is not just from my personal experience, anyone who has much experience with Pits will tell you the same thing. There is after all a REASON they have to use "breaking sticks" to pry a Pits mouth open in the ring...No, I am NOT an advocate of dog-fighting, so get your hand off the phone!

I understand that some of you folks, and probably most in this section have vast experience in training (thats why I come here) However, I didn't just fall off the watermelon wagon, I have some limited experience as a professional trainer, In addition to this, I founded "Doggie Daycare" in Arlington Texas in the early 80s, I have invented several new products for positive puppy training, and I am 67 years old, with (almost) a degree in psychology. I really don't see why my use of a term that best describes MY dog to ME should set so many people on me like a pack of hounds. In retrospect, I'm really sorry I used it. 

In the interest of learning and cooperation I offer this;

Last winter I decided I was going to teach Billy, who I have described variously as Possibly retarded, Autistic, stress avoidant, etc. (I don't remember if I listed Fear Imprinted), anyway, I started to throw treats on a small rug in the living room and as he was going on the mat I would say "on your mat" (classical conditioning?)

After a couple of months of doing this several times a day (in addition to feeding him on this mat..saying "on your mat" while bringing his food to the mat twice a day) I started using a clicker to reward going on the mat. I would say "on your mat" and click and throw a treat to him when his foot touched the mat.

Gradually I started transitioning to giving the command first, and standing perfectly still looking from him to the mat and back at him, etc, Well after about six months of this when I say "on your mat" he looks at me like i'm crazy for a second, then lies down, after approximatly 5 or 10 seconds of me standing motionless he gets up and goes to his mat, but will only stay there if I am coming with the food (he knows "stay" in certain contexts, like when coming to a busy intersection he waits at the curb, till i say "heel" and start across. He also knows "stay" if i have a treat for him he will wait until I say OK and offer it, but he doesn't seem to get it when he is on his mat.) Also he is not afraid or otherwise averse to the mat because he often lies there when I am watching the news as it is nearby... three feet away

fyi; this dog has never been hit and never heard the word "no"....From the age of 12 weeks till now. From this description, does anyone have an idea why it has taken six months to teach him a so-so "on your mat"?...am I doing something drastically wrong?  Thanks

tex123

Possibly retarded

 Really?!

tex123

My fault, I should have said "working intelligence"...

Well, if you are going to really delve into *that* subject, then you're going to open a big can of worms. Because I would be the first to argue - when it comes to working intelligence (and many will no longer use that term),  it's not "one dog smarter than another" - but rather, each breed has its own working intelligence and cannot be rated against another. So you cannot begin to compare a Lab to a Pit, as they have two totally "different" kinds of intelligences.  Sighthounds were bred to work independently and hunt by sight - therefore they often may have better visual ranges than most dogs. Scenthounds - again, bred to work entirely by the nose, therefore may have even better developed scent (conformation plays a role in this as well, height, build, ears, and nasal structures) than any other breed, but not as great of sight. Labs have been bred (historically) to have very soft mouths and to follow and bring back things in its mouth. So yes, a Greyhound may not be the best retriever, and it may not herd, but it is in fact no less "intelligent" than a Lab or a Border Collie. Working intelligence pertains to a breed itself. So, you compare a Lab to other Labs, and a Border Collie to other Border Collies.  A Border Collie who cannot herd, might be said to have poor working intelligence. A Lab who cannot Retrieve, and a Golden Retriever with severe resource guarding, may be said to have low working intelligence. But because a Pitbull is not a natural retriever, doesn't mean it's in any way "dumber" or "less" than any other breed. 

The Intelligence of Dogs is sadly very outdated, and very incorrect. I had a feeling you are looking at that book. The statistics are no longer even accurate, so it doesn't really pertain well to the conversation.

Don't get me wrong, there are definite differences between breeds, different strengths and weaknesses that make them better for what they were bred to do. When it comes to that - every breed is brilliant.  Field-type Labradors (because I would argue that most show Labs are no longer all that Labby) would never make it in the pit ring, nor would they make it on a fox hunt. A Beagle will not be likely to go to underground and flush out rabbits.  A Jack Russell is not likely to walk under a carriage like a Dalmatian, and most Poodles don't cut it as Schutzhund dogs. Dogs are considered a specialized species - because we've taken one species and adapted them to perform just about any function that is possible, functions we ourselves can only dream about.

tex123

I am also aware that during the time you mention, and especially prior to that time frame, "snatch and jerk" was the way most people and many "professionals" trained, but the fact remains, whether you use a clicker or a club, it takes longer to train the recall with a Pit than it does a Lab

Not always. Take many Labs to a dog park and suddenly none of them have very good recalls, and they will blow you off at the first sign of playing with anything else, whereas most of my Pit clients maintain amazing recalls.  You can't argue that "Labs are smarter than Pits in water, but dumber at the dog park". No, Labs are so much more social generally, that it's that sociability that can become a struggle to teach through, whereas the fact that not all Pits are nearly as genetically sociable with other dogs, that their recall maintains its strength!

I have better recalls on my five month old Mini Schnauzer (a rather independent breed, if you will) than most people do on their adult dogs who have been through some training. That's not meant as a brag, but rather as much as genetics are important and play a role, let's not forget the "nurture" part of nature vs. nurture. Ray Coppinger, in his amazing book Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour, and Evolution, put to rest a lot of the thngs you are arguing against here. It's an amazing read, and worth the read if you are interested in that sort of thing (which, by Coren's book, makes me think you are interested at least a little bit!)

Dogs are so much more complex than the way Coren fits them into neat little categories, and as I mentioned the statistics he notes aren't even accurate anymore in terms of obedience rankings, let alone the fact that science these days is beginning to realize that "intelligence" as we call it isn't just one thing, that there are types of intelligences and that each animal, based upon its genetic makeup, is brilliant at its own features. 

We can't use sonar, or echolocation, and to be honest our running skills are very poor compared to many animals. Our sense of smell, too, may be considered "lacking in intelligence" to any canine or feline!! But it doesn't make us stupid, considering we are thought (by some) to be the "most intelligent" animal out there!

Kim:

" I put the pup in (the kennel) with a good chew (antler, bully stick, or stuffed kong) and just let the pup settle."

I was taught that the purpose of crate training was to teach the pup NOT to chew things in your absence.

tex123

I was taught that the purpose of crate training was to teach the pup NOT to chew things in your absence.

Not at all, at least that's not what I ever want to teach the pup. I would never put a puppy in a kennel without putting something appropriate to chew and/or a puzzle toy in with them! It's borderline inhumane IMO to leave a puppy alone in a confined area without giving it appropriate toys to play with. Puppies, and older dogs, have an innate need to chew. If you don't provide for that need for them, they *will* find other things to chew. By limiting their chewing as a puppy to "appropriate chew items only", I am shaping their brain to NOT chew tables, and couches, and my TV stand, but instead to choose willingly the many appropriate chews that are left out for them.

The purpose of crate training, for me, is to teach pups three main things: that it's okay to be in a confined space for periods of time, to promote successful housetraining, and to prevent *unwanted* chewing by giving a pup more freedom than it is yet ready to handle. 

I am the same as Kim.  All my kennels have chew objects, most have multiple (antlers, marrow bones, nylabones, Kongs).  I don't really care where or when a dog chews as long as it's not chewing MY stuff!  When Pan puts himself to bed he usually goes and finds a marrow bone to take with him.

It's whatever works for the individual trainer, personally I go with the theory that like us, dogs are creatures of habit, and if they form a habit of relieving the stress of confinement by chewing in your absence they will never be trustworthy when left alone in the house for an extended period.

I can leave my autistic dog alone in the house and he won't chew, likewise my GSD. That said, I would like to know how it is possible to teach a dog not to chew by allowing him to chew. I am always willing to learn. do you punish the dog when he chews anything OTHER than a designated toy?

I guess I can't answer that question because I don't agree that dogs chew as a stress-relieving habit.  I believe dogs chew because it is their nature.  They are carnivores with heads and teeth that are designed for tearing and chewing.  It is not just a nervous habit.  I personally do not care whether my dogs chew or not chew or if I'm home or out.  If I have a particular dog (or dog going through a phase) that REALLY likes to chew, then I simply give him appropriate things to chew and remove the things that are not appropriate to chew so he can't access them.  I don't punish my dogs for chewing.