How do you train? Tell me everything you think/know/do.

spiritdogs

Training doesn't take place in a vacuum at my house

This is what it's all about.  Dogs are always learning but people tend to train when they are in 'training' mode.  Not an original thought or concept, by any means, but one that gets lost in the mechanics of training sometimes. 

JackieG

spiritdogs

Training doesn't take place in a vacuum at my house

 

This is what it's all about.  Dogs are always learning but people tend to train when they are in 'training' mode.  Not an original thought or concept, by any means, but one that gets lost in the mechanics of training sometimes. 

oranges81

Like running full speed to the end of the leash will end you on your butt.

OK back to the original question - with the proviso that everyone that has responded thus far has more knowledge and experience than me - I believe wholeheartedly that stopping when your dog pulls and 'no' can be very effective and to me I don't see them as negative.

The stop and start when the leash is slack is a daily ritual here and is more effective than any other technique we have tried. He knows that I won't keep going if the leash is tight.

Keeping in mind that I own a bullishly stubborn and powerful dog I admit to using 'NO' at times.  It is an interrupter and an effective one - for him. He has many commands and a fairly good 'leave it' (I pray each night and work each day so that someday we might get 'leave it' strong enough that he will leave baby bunnies and other tasty furries alone) but on the rare occasion I say a quick 'no' in a strong tone, he will alter what he is doing.  Of course that is because he knows what not to be doing and what he should be doing Thinking out loud that is the key I taught him using positive reinforcement what I want him to do and what is OK but he always pushes the boundaries so that is when I use the interrupter

Always keeping in mind he is a 'hard' dog - I have been around many softer dogs and they would not respond well to the 'no' but then again they wouldn't need to hear it LOL

I use no as a NRM. Sometimes I use it to signify that she isn't getting the reward but sometimes I also accompany it with a big consequence i.e. I say no (not forcefully just neutrally), take her and put her on a tie out/in a crate/in the car etc to end the training session.

  Here is another take on the idea that if you want to use positive training, you can't use any correction: http://www.clickandtreat.com/html/offleadinhibitions.HTM

  The article is by Gary Wilkes - one of the first people to bring clicker training to dog trainers. He and Karen Pyror went all over country presenting clicker training seminars to dog people in the 90s. At that point Karen Pyror was not really a "dog trainer", although she had worked with dogs. Her knowledge of the method came from years of working with dolphins. Gary Wilkes had a lot of experience with dogs specifically. That made for a well rounded seminar on clicker training. However, I believe the difference in opinion on correction eventually ended up causing a bit of a falling out between them.

 For me personally, I consider myself a clicker trainer. I teach behaviors using a clicker or a marker word. I teach classes based on clicker training methods. I have an extremely good working knowledge of the method and have been using clicker training since around 96. But I still use correction for some things, generally for life skill type behaviors. IME dogs understand and respond to fair correction. It does not cause them to shut down and it makes it clear what is not acceptable. It does not make them any less "operant" when learning new behaviors either.

 Understand that clicker training was widely used by marine animal trainers long before it was presented to the dog community. There is a vast difference between training marine animals in a consistently controlled setting and training a dog who shares your life and your living space. Clicker training works on all animals but the interactions between trainer and animal in day to day life differ greatly.

Great synopsis of your training, Agile.  I pretty much agree and train the same way except I use a marker word in place of a clicker *most* of the time.  I also agree that pairing positive marker based training with corrections does not automatically result in a dog that is shut down and helpless.  I think to say that dogs can only understand one method or they become helpless really undermines the potential of the dog. 

There can be quite a bit of pressure in clicker training. It's a great environment to build up a dog's confidence and teach them to work through a little frustration or anxiety because you can control it to such a fine degree. 

corvus

There can be quite a bit of pressure in clicker training. It's a great environment to build up a dog's confidence and teach them to work through a little frustration or anxiety because you can control it to such a fine degree. 

I guess it depends on how you define pressure.  Like I said in Karen's drive thread, to me there is a difference between creating stress and applying pressure. You can create stress by applying pressure but I don't think that because a dog is out of balance/stressed a bit during training means that that pressures have been applied.

I think the difference between clicker training and other training also involves when you introduce punishment or negative reinforcement as well.

In some training modalities, reinforcement and punishment are used equally and together, right from the beginning, whereas in most clicker training/positive training - consequences for a behaviour are not included until the behaviour is fully taught. In other words, the behaviour is taught using positive reinforcement, then worked on distance, distraction, and duration, and only then, if the dog chooses another behaviour, do you look at the possibility of some type of punishment.  By that time though, the behaviour is likely quite sufficient and has a strong reinforcement history that any type of punisher likely wouldn't be required. That is more along the lines of how I teach.

I think everyone uses *some* sort of negative - it's unfortunately impossible to prevent, as dogs will find lots of negative in their lives and have to adjust. It's the type of negative that people will disagree on using.

For me - I will not use an aversive that causes pain, physical discomfort, or promotes an anxious or fearful response, and I judge that based upon each dog. My aversives come in the form of daily life things - closing the door if you don't sit first, not coming out of a kennel if you aren't calm, not eating if you don't sit first, time-out for hard biting, time-outs for out of control behaviour, and like I said a rare "Eh" (I'm not even sure it's aversive - in fact I don't think it is - it more just gets attention). Things like that. I don't get physical or confrontational, I remain consistent and persistent, and will help dogs get to the right decision when needed, while letting them learn to get it on their own when they are ready. It is very much like a dance.  

It's why for me, clicker training really does become a *lifestyle* and not just a *teaching method* because I get good behaviour as much through routines as I do through simple cause/effect learning.

Kim_MacMillan

I think the difference between clicker training and other training also involves when you introduce punishment or negative reinforcement as well.

True, although I also think you can teach three behaviors three totally different ways and not somehow corrupt the dog or his learning style.

Nikon's formal retrieve was taught 100% free shaping with mark and reward.  His retrieves are so focused and consistent and there is absolutely no chewing on the dumbbell, I don't think I would ever attempt to train this behavior any other way regardless of the dog.  It took longer than other methods but I've never had to take a step back and "fix" anything about it.

On the other hand Nikon is a dog that LOVES confrontation.  This has just come out in the past few months, as his "fighting drive" and "active aggression" start to come out in his protection work, I see this carry over into just playing or using toy reward for obedience.  He no longer wants to fetch as the reward or play tug as the reward, he jumps on my chest and pushes the toy into me and *wants* to have a very physical confrontation.  He loves the roughhouse play where I playfully slap his head or butt as we're tugging or have him in a headlock and push him around with my legs.  If I let go of him and turn my back, he jumps back on me pushing the toy into me for more.  He is a very "physical" dog whether it's how he is worked or just how he plays.  As he matures it's interesting to see how he interacts with me and how it changes.  It is not a matter of "dominance" or aggression towards me, quite the opposite, he is the lowest dog at our house and has never once challenged me in anyway, when he was younger he was quite handler sensitive and now he is maturing and his confidence is constantly being built up.  As a puppy his MO was to try to earn his toy so he could run off and chew it by himself, then he progressed to figuring out it's more fun to bring it back and play fetch as a reward, then he was comfortable tugging and wanted to do that with me, and now he wants play that simulates a physical confrontation.  The physical is simply what he is bred to understand.  It has little to do with what training I would choose to use or choose to condemn, the dog is what he is and to ignore this aspect of his temperament would just not be fair to him.

Kenya on the other hand would probably pee on herself and express her anal glands if I tried the type of play and interaction that Nikon relishes.  She is all about calm, fluid movements and a predictable routine.  She works for praise and affirmation above anything else.  Toys confuse her and she avoids all conflict with any human even if it's just play roughhousing.  She gives off a lot of calming signals and responds to humans emulating calming signals.

You just have to know your dogs and figure out what works for them, what learning style they understand and what promotes expressing their drives and building their confidence.

 Jason I sent you a PM so I don't derail another thread with Schutzhund talk!

Wilkes uses a clicker, so many people like to use him as a defense for mixing methods, but, by definition, what he does isn't clicker training in the sense that clicker trainers understand it.  I would much prefer that people call it Wilkes training, or mixed training, but make the distinction between those who practice "clicker training" and those who are "training with clickers."   It is NOT the same thing.  It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference, and this is not to imply which is right or wrong.  I'm not a purist (I use lure/reward, marker, and clicker training, depending on the dog or the client), but those who are trying to use clicker training as a method get very upset with this line of reasoning, because it muddies the definitions and is used by many people to imply that clicker training is "wrong" and they are right because you can't train a dog without punishing it sometimes (false, you can use extinction to good advantage, and you can use NRM's, although the debate goes on about whether those are a cue, an interruption, or a punishment).  In any case, I think I'm with Dunbar when he says, "Give them a scalpel, they'll dissect a kiss."  There is way too much emphasis on being right in the training world, and way too little on what is really scientifically sound or good for dogs (and not just convenient for humans, although that's one reason he advocates lure/reward for newbies - it's easier for them to learn, and they get quicker results without a lot of hassle).

Liesje

corvus

There can be quite a bit of pressure in clicker training. It's a great environment to build up a dog's confidence and teach them to work through a little frustration or anxiety because you can control it to such a fine degree. 

 

I guess it depends on how you define pressure.  Like I said in Karen's drive thread, to me there is a difference between creating stress and applying pressure. You can create stress by applying pressure but I don't think that because a dog is out of balance/stressed a bit during training means that that pressures have been applied.

I was responding to Jason's comment about a dog needing to learn how to deal with a correction so they can cope with some form of stress or pressure in their life. I agree that a dog needs to be able to cope with things not going their way, but I don't believe I need to correct my dogs to achieve that. I am very careful about monitoring how my dogs cope with strange and unpleasant things and deliberately set about allowing them to gain success with coping strategies I think are safe and appropriate and removing stressors if it looks like they will not have success with the coping strategies I encourage. Example, a few months ago Erik and Kivi met a strange dog at a dog park that kept running at them and nipping them. Kivi dealt with this worrying situation by coaxing the dog into a game with him. I would expose him to any number of flakey dogs as long as he is happy to employ a non-aggressive coping strategy and has success with it. On the other hand, Erik tried to avoid the dog and give it "don't hurt me, I'm no threat" signals, but the dog kept coming back at him. I left the park with him because he was not having success with his non-confrontational coping and I felt that any moment he was going to try something else and I wasn't sure that it would be something I would want him to have success with. I would have stayed if it looked to me like he was going to change to another non-confrontational strategy. Learning another of those would have been worth the risks with the flakey dog IMO. Although I will point out that I was confident it wasn't going to hurt anyone.

I don't want to protect my dogs from every stress they might encounter. I want them to learn to cope with stress on their own. I believe it will help them to be confident, well-balanced dogs that can handle themselves when things don't go the way they like.