Independent Thinking - CM revisited

Becca, the thought occurs to me that if a dog is brought along primarily by positive methods, and then has to accept some degree of correction in training for work, there is a huge possibility that the trust that has already been built between handler and dog will survive that.  But, IMO, a dog that has been handled with coercion from the start never gains the trust that makes the dog the outstanding worker that he could have been.   Not everyone is interested in herding as a living, as you are.  Some just want a weekend pursuit that suits their dog's natural abilities.  But, also, there are many activities, even work, that can be accomplished with all positive methods, including competitive obedience, agility, rally-o, flyball, freestyle, field work, protection, tracking, etc. etc. that I see no earthly reason for any average person to cave to the idea that coercion from the start is the way to have a leadership relationship with a dog.  I don't want to speak for you, but I suspect that your dogs' early rearing includes lots of positives.  No puppy that I know needs a knee in the chest to be trained to stop jumping up, and they don't need tssst either.  They simply need to be taught an incompatible behavior to DO, or be completely ignored for doing the wrong behavior on a consistent basis.  Failure to be consistent or to train the dog is the human's fault, not the dog trying to establish himself as CEO  of the household.

I am wondering if we are on 2 different subjects here.  One being working dogs who are trained by experienced handlers/trainers.  The end result being the dog is happy and loving it's work. I don't know much (if anything) about the process, but in my mind, I am not seeing  constant leash pops and alpha rolls. These dogs are not even leashed during work are they? If the corrections go along the lines of 'hey' or 'no' or whatever...I have to side with MP here, as I consider that information not correction.

The other being the average joe watching the tele and doing the techniques improperly and the dog physically and mentally suffering for it.

In my mind, I cannot connect the 2. 

ORIGINAL: glenmar

I would hope that the comment being found offensive would be removed by the poster.  We're adults and I'd rather not have to edit anyone myself.

 
Hopefully that is better, if not please let me know.

Pup needs three things no matter what he does, according to him. He needs to know his name, he needs to know what NO means, and he needs to know that his place is with you. The name is taught positively with praise, attention, and petting. No means any correction, and you start right away. You don't like something, you find a correction that works with pup and use it. Then you back off until pup responds to the most subtle correction. After that, you can walk away and if pup doesn't follow, you say, "GYP!" and if pup doesn't follow you say "Hey!" If you stay consistent with this, you'll have a pup that you rarely need a recall and never need a leash (remember we're talking herding breeds here of course, though I've taught this to my Maremma and my Chinese crested, too).

 
Brookcove, great post. This is very interesting. Could you go into more detail or direct me to where I might go to get more information on training of herding dogs?
 
Thanks   

I see no earthly reason for any average person to cave to the idea that coercion from the start is the way to have a leadership relationship with a dog.

 
Even if this method were 100 percent successful (which I doubt), it is simply not a relationship I want to have.

ORIGINAL: brookcove

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).

I've been on Clickherd since it started (2003)

...

ETA: A quote from our Grand Old Man of sheepdog literature, Don McCaig:

People often wonder just what trainers give the sheepdog in exchange for its boundless willingness. Food treats and praise sit on the trainer's shelf, untouched, unused. The sheepdog is shown its possibilities, he learns what life is like for a good dog and is invited to walk in a rational world whose farthest boundaries are defined by grace.

---- Donald McCaig, Nop's Hope

Wow. Very informative! [sm=bow2.gif]

ORIGINAL: ron2

with +R techiniques the dog needs to stop being rude AND do other behavior that the owner is telling him to do

So, are you saying that clicker training provides more control than traditional methods?[]

Bad Ron, bad, bad Ron.
[]

In this case and if by "more control" you mean less independence then yes [], i dont think that just stoping the behavior and having the dog doing anything else that means you have less control over the dog

Glenda: your "eh eh" is CM's "sshhhh", not 100% identical but the idea is the same

I suspect that there is a whole different thot process behind my "eh eh" tho.  I do not need to prove myself as the leader.  My general attitude establishes that without my even trying.

ORIGINAL: glenmar

I suspect that there is a whole different thot process behind my "eh eh" tho. 

 
Well both are corrections, i dont know what you mean by "process" but the idea is the same, to stop the behavior, now if you do something extra right after to tell the dog what to do instead then thats like i said: an "extra"

Funny you said that.  My students often ask me why their dogs, during the playtime, seldom exhibit poor manners with me.  The humans often don't seem to understand, until it is pointed out to them, that my demeanor is somewhat different than theirs.  But, yet, I have said nothing to the dogs. 

DPU, I would like to commend you for editing your post at Glenmar's suggestion. Thank you for being sensitive to other's perceptions.

However, I think that in discussion, blunt claims sometimes should be met with equally blunt responses. While DPU's statement was not sugar-coated, Spiritdogs' wasn't either. It was a direct claim that CM's training method caused a death, which is a pretty serious assertion, and one deserving of more exploration, especially when it is made within a thread entitled "CM revisited". And, since DPU isn't even a "Ceasareenie," he's certainly not questioning said member's judgement in CM's defense.

This thread was proceeding smoothly and civilly for 4 1/2 pages. Let's see if we can keep it that way from here on out.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
When I used CM style stuff, I had dogs that wouldn't come to me - one of them died because of it. 

ORIGINAL: DPU
Common sense would have dictated a change in method was in order way before death occurred.

I don't think I've ever had a more tasteless comment directed at me.  You don't know the circumstances, nor would I now bother explaining to someone who would make such a remark.

The use of verbal "that's not what I want" markers and well-timed corrections doesn't lead to abuse and shut down dogs.  It's the eople who claim that all doggy behavioral problems will just magically go away if only you "become the leader" or "show the dog who is boss" who are dangerous. Average Joe hears this, goes home, minor attempts to "show the dog who is boss" don't cure any of the dog's behavioral problems so Average Joe escalates his attempts, and now we slide over into abuse, we end up with shut down dogs, we create viciously aggressive dogs (better get him before he gets me).

ORIGINAL: Personal Champ

DPU, I would like to commend you for editing your post at Glenmar's suggestion. Thank you for being sensitive to other's perceptions.

However, I think that in discussion, blunt claims sometimes should be met with equally blunt responses.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
When I used CM style stuff, I had dogs that wouldn't come to me - one of them died because of it. 

ORIGINAL: DPU
Common sense would have dictated a change in method was in order way before death occurred.

I don't think I've ever had a more tasteless comment directed at me.  You don't know the circumstances, nor would I now bother explaining to someone who would make such a remark.

DPU's statement was not OK--in any board section, whether the discussion is training or feeding.  I think it is very, very unfortunate that an admin would imply that it was.  Very sad indeed.[&o]

Anne are you sure you were doing it right while appliying "CM methods"? because for that to happen you really need to have no idea of what you are doing []

1) Jack, my current hero (I'm sure youve gathered that. lol) hates the whole dominance thing. With a passion. His goal is not a dog that "submits" but a dog that is thinking - about him primarily, and of course about the dog's role in what is going on.

2) I suddenly realize that many of you don't understand what the daily life of a farm dog is like. It is probably 80%, simply hanging around waiting to be useful. Once one of my dogs is trained, I probably spend far, far less time actually directly interacting with that dog than the vast majority of you here. I don't have either the energy or the free time to use a lot of blocking, incompatible behaviors, or countercommands, to moderate my dogs' behavior - and besides, such things are a distaction when I need the dogs ready to spring into independent action at any moment. I'm reminded of the famous story of the farmer who was so proud of how well he'd taught his Border Collie to "stay" while he did chores. One day, a pen full of bullocks got loose and stampeded over the dog. The dog hadn't heard his master's cries to move over the noise of the oncoming herd, and had simply held his ground as he had been taught. Thus, the majority of the things we teach the dog are what is not allowed rather than what we want the dog to do. As I mentioned before, this makes for a dog that is super to live with and a marvelous travel companion. Isn't that what we want from a companion dog?

3) I feel this deserves a seperate remark (or two or six, knowing me []):

Becca, the thought occurs to me that if a dog is brought along primarily by positive methods, and then has to accept some degree of correction in training for work, there is a huge possibility that the trust that has already been built between handler and dog will survive that. But, IMO, a dog that has been handled with coercion from the start never gains the trust that makes the dog the outstanding worker that he could have been.

It's actually the case that the opposite is true. I've seen it literally dozens of times, over the ten years or so that I've been training stockdogs and going to clinics with world-class instructors. I've talked to some of those same trainers, people who are very reasonable and have no interest in harming dogs or getting results at any cost - and they have seen that a lack of exposure to correction in a dog's foundation training, undermines the dog's confidence tremendously when they face stock for the first time.

Sidenote: the term coercion in the second proposal you make, is an inaccurate description of what I'm describing. There are many people whose methods fall under that umbrella - when the dog is "made" to be right, but I think it's a mindset as deconstructive to developing a good working (or companion) relationship, as "dominance."

When we put a dog in with the sheep (or whatever) that first time, we step back and invite the dog to interact with the sheep as instinct dictates. A good dog both wants to chase the sheep, and also feels the "fight or flight zone" as a natural correction to their desire to chase. Dogs who have no experience working through a problem under pressure, almost invariably hit the "wall" that first time and crumble. The dog locks up, confused at the new feeling of pressure.

The dog looks to Mommy, who can't do anything for them because she doesn't understand why Snookums won't go play with the sheepies. Next Mommy will start pointing at the sheep and making hand motions, maybe even pushing at the dog (more pressure). People who do agility or obedience often use their "Go out" cues, which really send the dog into a tail spin. "Where's the obstacles? And don't you see those sheep which are making me feel so funny?"

We have to spend a lot of time with such a dog, stimulating the instinct enough that the dog pushes past the pressure. Then we'll often have to play a balancing act between teaching the dog to respond correctly to pressure and keeping the interest alive - and also keeping the sheep safe while we convince the dog that chasing is OK.

And even more complex, is teaching the handler to walk that same line - because the new handler has a huge learning curve of learning to read the sheep to the extent that he or she can tell when they are asking the dog to do something difficult, requiring an adjustment in pressure from them. I don't know whether that makes sense, but it's important because I've seen this is true in non working situations, too.

The dog that's been raised to be familiar with the give and take of pressure hits the wall and either decides to give to it, or not. If he's wrong I'll tell him. If he's right I'll let it alone. Such a dog actually gains confidence by the knowlege that boundaries exist and will be outlined fairly by me, and that everything else consists of grace, as McCaig said, where the dog is free to act upon his instincts or wishes.

Edited: Corrected formating error, oops.