Independent Thinking - CM revisited

As far as the term "humbly obedient", you've got a semantic problem there. You are reading a connotation into the term humble that doesn't necessarily apply. Humilty simply means thinking of others first. You can be humble and even operate in a leadership function - two Biblical examples are Moses and Christ.

My working training is quite correction-based. My goal is to instill an attitude where the dog isn't afraid to work independently, but also is mentally "with me" at all times, so that if I offer input, I don't have to fight to gain control.

Yesterday I worked on a dog to get him to stop when asked rather than when it felt good to him, to stop. To do this I set it up so it was fairly easy to stop then was very positive about asking for it, then I worked up to stopping him when it was more and more difficult. If he failed, I'd back up a step, but I'd remain positive about my corrections - he always knew when he'd screwed up.

The result was that this dog, who was always running scared because there was that tension between us about stopping, "got it" and realized it wouldn't kill him to stop when asked. I started out being pretty firm but at the end we were tuned into each other enough that I could correct him with a quiet "ah-ah" and he'd respond without even flicking an ear back at me.

And when we left the field, he knew that he had done well. It was actually the sheep who told him that, because most of the time they were calm, he was in control, and I was staying out of his way and letting him handle the sheep. He was dancing and grinning and if he could talk, I know he'd say, "Didya see that mama? Didn't I do good?"

The trainers I respect most are very very traditional. But I've come to realize that traditional doesn't mean 100% correction-based. What a good trainer does is set it up so that the desired behavior is the one that is easiest to do, and correct everything else. To take the analogy of the person who is on the "NO" team, it would be as if the desired behavior was to touch the wall opposite the door in the classroom, but not only are you going to use "NO" to signal wrong choices, but you also moved all the desks and people in the room so that they blocked the path to all but the opposite wall. If you heard NO every time you moved anywhere but towards the wall, AND you were physically restricted from going anywhere but that way, you'd relax and go with the flow. The tone of the corrections is important, too - if you are in the mindset to respond to any input whatsoever, the correction can be very gentle.

I know whereof I speak. One of the most eye opening experiences I've ever had as a trainer was when my mentor put me in a pen with sheep, then directed me as if I were a dog just starting out. He directed me to pretend I only wanted to go straight at the sheep, then he'd do the rest. He used verbal corrections and standing in the space where he didn't want me, and it was amazing how it felt and how quickly we "got together." It felt almost like there was a string pulling me where I had to go, and all I had to think about was the sheep - he took care of the rest. Very relaxing and confidence boosting - and that's what I see in dogs that work with him. Not "shut down" or "refusing to offer behaviors" - quite the opposite.

However, I can also say that this type of training is really hard to get right. People see the correction part and think it's all about that, when that's just a teeny part. The important part is setting it up so that the desired behavior is a reward in itself - freedom comes when impulse control is exhibited.

And you accept any effort to obey as long as you see that the dog is trying - if the dog doesn't get it, but is showing that he's willing to try, it's your turn to "give" and make it easier to obey. A lot of people don't get that and just keep hammering at it, and that's where you get into trouble. The dog doesn't have to get it perfect right from the start - you set it up so that it's easy to go down the road to the behavior you want, just as you'd do with something like clicker training.

So if they are so similiar in goals and methods, why don't we just use clicker training for working stock? The problem is that clicker training requires a rather structured, controlled environment to communicate what you want, and when we work, you need a way to tell a dog that you don't want what he's giving you at that moment. Herding is about 5% mechanical behaviors, and 95% the dog and you, just acting as a silent team to do what needs to be done to control the sheep.

Sunday we were out sorting sheep with my husband's new dog, who was raised and trained by my mentor. Patrick was using lots of "come byes" and "way to mes" to get Gus where he wanted him to hold the flock still to catch sheep and push them through the gate. Suddenly I noticed that if I faced a particular sheep, Gus would start to move in on the sheep and it would head towards the gate itself. If I turned away from the one sheep, Gus would let off the pressure and go back to holding the whole flock. I never asked for this - I didn't even know he could do it. I asked his trainer later if he taught that and he said, "No, a good dog's got that in him already."

Now that's not the behavior of a dog that's afraid to stir a foot independently. A dog in a state of learned helplessness would be useless to us - but so is a dog that is throwing out random behaviors like mad, with no restraint. I'm in hot water if my dog if I've got a lot of rams bearing down on me and my dog reverts to a default behavior, and I have no way to control it. Dogs like this end up in pet homes, for good reasons - they are dangerous!

I just wanted to point out that correction-based training is not in itself what is described here. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

no, of course not, corrections properly used are not evil. But I'm sure I'm not the only person who was happily using "dominance based" techniques for years with OK results, then got a dog on who such techniques backfired (induced serious aggression), and instead of sending dog to the happy hunting lands in the sky went to a clicker training seminar and came home totally stunned. In this case, "old technique" is definitely not as good as "new technique".

So if they are so similiar in goals and methods, why don't we just use clicker training for working stock?

And I have no qualm with that method for working stock. Not sure CM works stock, though (haven't seen it). Most of the people on this thread have dogs who aren't actively working stock--they're just house dogs who need to learn how to better fit with their families.
 
I guess I see a HUGE difference between a working stock dog and a house dog and I see, too, that training methods could very well differ.

ORIGINAL: JM

There is no independant thinking, no independent action.

I mean really...is this what people want from their dogs?

Actually there is A LOT of independent action, a good example is when a guest comes to the house, with CM techniques the dog can do whatever he/she wants except being "rude" to the guest (jumping, barking, growling, etc) with clicker techniques the dog has to do something instead (sit, lay down, stay, etc) that for me is taking the independence away more from a dog that the freedom of do whatever he/she wants than just stop being "rude" [] , with +R techiniques the dog needs to stop being rude AND do other behavior that the owner is telling him to do

Actually, I like many of CM's methods, and have used some of them when I feel it is appropriate.

However, I tend to be suspicious of highly marketed trainers who have followers that tend to be a bit overzealous. 
It creeps me out.  This is not just a CM thing, but I also feel the same way about Pat Parelli, the horse trainer.  You think CM is conroversial, say the word "Parelli" in a room full of horse lovers.  You get everything from "God's gift to horsekind" to "bloody idiot."  For me, it's not the trainers themselves necessarily, it's the attitudes of *some* of their followers.  I have found that I am actually less likely to go watch the show and buy the book because of some of the things that I have seen on idog then I was before idog (and not from the positive trainers either), just like I will likely never go out and buy all the Parelli junk after having a few conversations with hardcore Parelli fans.

ohh yeah, hard care parelli folks are even scarier than CMworshippers. Everyone has useful things to teach, but useful learning stops when you disconnect your brain and swallow the whole package as "everything and that's it".

I enjoy watching his shows for what he teaches about common sense, basic dog psychology, and stressing the importance of our body language, our timing with corrections/markers/rewards, and how easy it is to inadvertently encourage the bad behavior.

  Liesje; You took the words right out of my mouth!!  

I think that if people appropriately trained their dogs correctly as impressionable puppies, there'd really be no need for someone Cesar Millans because having established leadership and a positive relationship, all we'd ever need to continue progressing would be positive reinforcement.

 

Again, I agree wholeheartly.  That is a lesson learned, if I do it again I will start training immediatly - effective training and not wait for the problems to begin and then try and fix them.  I have learned simple things like, oh how we love having a puppy jump on us, climb on our laps and lick our faces - ewh.. so cute! We pet them and tell them what a good puppy they are, I love you and get all excited.  But when they get a few months older and bigger and greet us in the same way (only now jumping up on us and scratching) we can't beleive he does this!  And the poor dog is saying why don't they want to say hi to me anymore and getting mad at me?  

Or as our priest has cautioned us (with regards to religion, but it applies here as well): Never put another person's head on top of your own shoulders.

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl

All I can say is that people have been jerking and hitting their dogs for years, only NOW it's CM's fault. My first experience with dog training was Woodhouse-style 4-H dog training classes I took as a 12 year old kid more than 20 years ago - when CM was still a nobody in Mexico. From that experience to to the obedience classes I took with Lucy just last summer very little has changed in my area of the country. CM's style of training is much more humane that what is still being taught to most 4-H kids for the country fair dog show.

If we want to end abuse in the name of dog training, we need to start with the worst offenders, and from the little of what I've seen, CM doesn't even come close. His celebrity just makes him an easier target. Why bash methods by trainers who are dead or are only known to dog professionals when we can bash a guy that everyone who has watched Oprah knows.

That being said - I wouldn't do a lot of the things CM does. But I also wouldn't do many of the things Donaldson does. I don't think CM's techniques are "one-size-fits-all" any more than clicker-training is. I'm learning as I go along, and I think Lucy has taught me as much as any of the dozens of dog-training books and shows that I've read or watched.

 
Another excellent post on the subject!!  [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Because the dog does not need to do a new behavior instead, the dog just needs to stop the current behavior and nothing else, the dog will need a couple times to realize that what he is doing is not allowed, he is free to do anything else that he wants instead, after a couple times the dog wont do it again even if you are not there

 

I agree with you you epencer.  I do both.  If it is something that I can easily trade a new behavior for I do that first.  I used a combination of techniques with my dog and I am a believer that to really stop rude unwanted behaviors that teaching them NOT to do it works best. 

well since this has turned into a CM feely good thread ..... I can actually say that I am a firm believer in the the no touch, no eye contact...blah blah thing...

espencer I don't agree.  I don't ask my dogs for another behavior, I ask them to stop what they are doing that I don't like. 
 
Tyler likes to open the gate on the deck and take a stroll.  Not safe at the moment with a major road construction detour going down my road......so I tied the gate shut.  Tyler likes to UNTIE the gate.[:@]   It takes nothing more than an "eh eh" for him to stop.  I am not asking him to sit, stay, down, or anything else.  I don't care WHAT he does on the confines of the deck, just so long as he doesnt open the gate and leave.  My "eh eh" correction is totally different from what I see with CM and what I see people THINKING that CM would do.  Now Tyler is an independent thinker and a darned smart little spit.......so I'm probably not going to trust that he won't try to open that gate when he thinks that I'm not looking.  I'm not gonna slap a shock collar on him to change the behavior....I'm gonna keep an eye on him when he's on the deck.  There are corrections and then there are corrections.  I opt for the softer ones.

That's funny, Glenda. He can do a lot!
 
To be fair, in my CM class I learned a lot about anticipating my dogs' next movements and I do use words to manage that. Not sure where it all fits in but please, it would be ludicrous of me to just "let" my dogs wander all over peoples' yards when we go walking--just because they want to. So, I say "eh eh" or "out" (depending on how extreme their plan is) and all is well. And they get a "good puppy" or even a treat for listening.

If anyone thinks this has turned into a CM feelygood thread, it's because we have not yet censored anyone who has come here to discuss.  But, just a gentle reminder -  this is intended as a place where people can freely disagree with anything CM does, or anything they see on the show.

Several years ago, no one believed that you could train protection dogs with +R, yet now it's done all the time - Steve White is the ron2 of that group. []   Couldn't train a retriever either - now there's a book with instructions on how to do it.  Couldn't possibly train a dog to herd with the use of clickers either - now there's a whole Yahoo group devoted to it (Clickherd).  The striving for a better understanding of motivation is better than the struggle to dominate, in my book, and works better for the large majority of dogs.  CM oversimplifies the relationship between humans and dogs down to boss/peon.  I prefer to think of it as CEO/competent and well respected assistant.  
And, Sioux, my best assistant thus far (except Dancer, of course - RIP), would be welcome in most Board Rooms based on her behavior.  She's been accepted into one of the ritziest restaurants here for a Lion's Club meeting, and has been on TV, walked in parades, and all the things that one would expect of a top notch therapy dog.  I got there using a clicker and some liver treats, and I'll never look back.  When I used CM style stuff, I had dogs that wouldn't come to me - one of them died because of it.  Now, I have dogs that come bounding to me with joy (even the hound).  Which would you choose?

I am sooo glad you're here, Anne! I've been reading Koehler's book (is my life boring or what to be reading this), his original book, and the arguments against what he does (happy dogs for clicker training vs the other) came out in his book, too. He said it's because different trainers (he know of Skinner back when Koehler was the Walt Disney dog trainer), meaning Skinner, don't know what else to say against force training (my term for Koehler and, to a big extent, CM).
 
He also said that the "positive" trainers will NOT take on different types of training nor will they take on a dog's problems.
 
For months and months now, I've read those same words on this board so your post was great for me to read. More insight = always good.
 
When we know better we do better--and I say that for myself since things have been going great for me as I've made better choices in my dog journey.