Well-Behaved (Taught), Well-Trained, and Relationship - ???

I prefer a combination.......more important to me would be well behaved, that would be due to my involvement in rescue......a well run pack is more important than tricks....but, I need my dogs to listen, so they know the basics and just a tad more......three of my dogs follow hand motion, and know how to do basic stuff without me having to use my voice.... also,walking a pack of dogs off leash is never easy.....but, we have worked very hard on that.

I think it' s more important to put good manners on a dog than train obedience commands.  I've met some obedience and agilty champs who must have been horrible to live with, they had no manners.

The only command a well-mannered pet dog really needs to know is a rock-solid recall, for safety reasons. Even if you never expect to let your dog off a leash, some day he might slip his collar or dart out the door and you'll wish you had spent the time working on that recall.

Conrad is largely untrained, though very well-behaved. He's never been to a class, he doesn't know that many commands (sit, down, come when called, stop, go home, back up) and many of those he pretty much trained himself on. He's that really soft, highly pack-oriented dog that was being discussed up-thread. Managing him is so easy at home because he's always glued to my side by his own choice. He doesn't get in to trouble because he'd so much rather be snuggled up with me than making his own fun. He rarely barks, is magnificently crate-trained (again, through no real effort of our own--he just took to it like duck to water) and while very velcro doesn't like to get under-foot. He likes to be near you, but not on you. I'm very happy with him and for what I want to do with him the only training we work on is for his reactivity issues. He's not physically sound so he'll never be a performance dog, and he's a home body and lazy just by nature. He's also no spring chicken, at about 7-8 years old now.

I was just explaining to my mom over the weekend why Marlowe has so many more trained behaviors than Conrad. It's because I do stuff with Marlowe that requires it. When we go to classes, he not only has to be able to do the stuff we're working on in class, he also has to be calm around other dogs, calm while not working, he has to have a good solid stay, and I have to be able to send him from a distance to go to his mat and stay there until I come get him. Are there dogs in my class who lack those behaviors? Yes, but their handlers have a much harder time of it because of that and I'd like to make it as easy as possible on both of us. We work hard on the "off-switch" and self-control behaviors because I want agility to be fun for both of us and if he's freaking out and I'm freaking out, it's not fun.

What my husband does with the dogs I think is a good example of "relationship in a vaccuum". He has no interest in training them, almost no interest in what I've trained them to do, he just wants them to  leave him alone when he wants to be left alone, and come snuggle when he wants to snuggle, and not pull his arm off when they go for walks. As a result, he confuses the holy heck out of them on a regular basis because he expects them to do stuff just based off their relationship, which is not at all a training relationship. He almost never rewards them for doing what he asks, he uses a bunch of random command words some of which they know and some of which they don't, he encourages them to get revved up and then doesn't know what to do with their drive after he's stimulated it. But he's quite happy with them, he thinks they behave just fine for him (even though they behave about a million times better for me), and I guess that's fine. He doesn't have very high standards and we've had three very sweet, forgiving, low-key, laid-back dogs that always meet his expectations for behavior because they just ain't very high. But he loves them and they love him and our dogs really don't play favorites between us even though our ways of being with them are so different from one another.

 Every moment we spend with our dogs we are training them.  We may not be teaching them what we think we are, but they are always learning:-  Naturally good manners occur with dogs that have especially good temperaments, but I also think that we are somewhat responsible for how our dogs turn out, so even if they aren't doing formal "heel", if their manners are good, chances are that we have done something right.

I like a dog with both, but I'll take training.  After all, if my dog jumps all over me, or someone else, it's not as likely to be life threatening as if he ignores a command to "leave It - come".
 

When Ixa first came to live with me last January, I knew nothing about dogs. It was important to me to get up to speed ASAP to develop good relationship habits with this strong-willed herding mix.

I immediately became attracted to canine freestyle (doggie dancing). It combined elements of obedience (training, control) and expression (creativity, movement). We did a lot of "training": obedience, agility, freestyle, ... then we discovered sheepherding. The herding work was so fundamentally different: it's a dance of multiple levels of cognition and consciousness. "Training" thrives on directly conscious communication and  experience. "Working sheep" thrives on limiting the "directly conscious" and making more space for subconscious modes of communication and experience. If you've ever done yoga, it's like developing that "soft focus gaze" that helps to heighten your other senses, and puts you more deeply in touch with your body (self awareness).

In obedience and agility, actions are broken down onto discrete behaviors: sit, down, over, table, etc. In herding, there are always many things happening at once, the world (and the sheep) don't wait for the "down" to move on to the next step. I found that Ixa learned to respond to me more deeply in the context of complex herding scenarios than she did in the highly controlled obedience setting (though I'm sure the obed experience fed the herding context, the mix of the 2 was super!). And, I realize that we haven't gone that far in agility or obedience, and that competition must be a more complex environment.

But, for me, as it turned out, the creative and masterful relationship I wanted with my dog wasn't to be found in the highly controlled context of canine freestyle, rather, it blossomed in the instinctual and collaborative context of herding. Herding really helped me realize that the non- "controlled" or "designed" aspects of our relationship are the most rich and rewarding.

Ixa does perform tricks for us, because she seems to really enjoy that system of trick-reward. I could just give her treats, but she really seems to enjoy them more when she's done a trick to earn them! And, I confess, sometimes I just like to show off my super dog who does coolio thingies ... lol!

The other very important thing I learned about in herding is the depth of Ixa's sense of humor. She is a charming little scoundrel! Very mischievous - stealing sheep, playing coyly with me ... I could probably train it out of her, but why in the heck would I do that? I love some of her quirky little bossy-miss behaviors!  So, control and enforcement, in our relationship, ebb and flow to accommodate our personalities, but also maintain enough civil decorum for our urban environs. Our relationship is fluid.

Well I think the relationship is important, possibly the most important part of our interactions with our dogs.  As far as training goes, I train behaviors, not because I want to, but because I need to.  My dog is smart.  He puts 2 and 2 together more quickly than any other dog I've had.  He needs the mental stimulation of interaction and new experience.  I try to provide that for him several times a week.   Some of our outdoor behaviors are important because nobody wants their dog at the end of a 20 foot lead jumping up and down trying to say hello to a stranger.  I prefer him to walk on my left when we pass another trail walker.  So we have rules for that.  I also want to direct him remotely-to the left or right or behind or straight ahead.  If he goes into the woods, I want to direct him on how to come back without tangling up his lead-so we have finger and hand cues for that as well.

I also like to let him solve puzzles and figure out things on his own, in doing this sometimes I'll notice a neat behavior that I want to put a cue on.  So I do.  Why not?  It's a test for me to see if I can observe him and learn new things, and a test for him to see how quickly he can learn.

There are those who think that me asking for a "bow" or a "high five" is just a cute "parlor trick."  But to me it's time well spent bonding with, learning with and teaching to my dog.   He doesn't ask for much and I don't expect more of him than he's eager to give.

This thread is really interesting and got me thinking...  To be honest - I would give anything for a laid back, pack oriented dog that was well behaved - but that is probably because I have the opposite :-)

I think that I would care a lot less about formal training if Wesley was generally well behaved.  If he was good with people and other dogs generally and I wasn't worried about things eliciting aggressive reactions from him - I really wouldn't care if when I told him "down" he dropped like his life depended on it and I wouldn't care if I had to nudge him off the couch rather than just telling him "off". 

But, for us, the 2 do go hand in hand though because each interaction we have with people and dogs that I control (ie - where there is no reaction) I feel that it is a step toward "well behaved" and we are getting that through formal training...  An example of this is last night, Wesley was laying at the foot of our bed (very normal) and I came over and bent over to kiss him goodnight (also very normal - and something I do as part of desencitization work we do with him to get him used to people bending over him) and for the first time IN A YEAR (so disappointing), he growled at me.  Now, if he wasn't well trained (or getting there), I am not sure what I would have done.  What I did do was stand up, say "eh eh, off, lie down" - no confrontation, no anger - just a firm message that growling was the wrong choice and dogs who growl do not get to lay on the bed, they need to lay on the floor away from all the good stuff like the window view...  So, for us, the ability to have a good relationship relies on formal training - although the ultimate goal is "good behavior."

Frosty is well behaved but not well trained. He is a super laid back dog, and always has been. In fact, I think I've let his training slide because he is so well behaved. I do nilif with my dogs, but I was just thinking abot this yesterday, I don't make Frosty comply like I do the other dogs. Feeding time, for example, Ripley and Penny want to jump up and try to get the food, so I make them "sit" and "wait" before I put the bowl down. Frosty just stands there - he is stubborn when it comes to commands - he just stands calmly and looks at me. I put his food down anyway. The way I see it, the whole point of nilif at mealtime, for us, is to get them calm so I don't get mobbed over food. He is already calm, so for him, the goal is already accomplished without nilif. He also has a rock solid recall, which I never trained. He just comes when I call him and it has always been like that. As far as commands go, I have actually had a really hard time teaching him anything. He will sit most of the time, but that's about it except for come, which like I said, I didn't teach. My other two know a variety of commands and tricks, but Frosty's like, yeah, you two go ahead with that silliness, I'll just chew my bone. My husband thinks he's dumb, but I don't think so. He lets himself out of his crate, something that the others haven't figured out, but he doesn't get into anything, he just likes to get out and lay on the bed. It's something like what houndlove said with Conrad I think, he just would really rather be with me than anything else (cept eating cat poop). Even when he does something, like go over to the litter box, I just say his name and he trots back over to me. He's a dream really, and I'm afraid I'll never have another dog like him.

I think a well-behaved dog is a well-trained dog, because like many have said, training is just teaching yourself and your dog how to communicate and you are doing that every minute you engage your dog.  Some dogs are easier to communicate with, some take more time.

My Dexy (Golden) was naturally well behaved (wait, did I just contradict myself?).  He wanted to do what I wanted him to do.  But I had to communicate what I wanted him to do.  We only went to one obedience trial, when he was nine.  We did not qualify because he dropped on the long sit.  But we always walked off-leash, I could call him off a deer and direct him to retrieve a bumper in a fast moving river.  All that was done one walk at a time, training by just being out there with him.  Teaching him by trying to communicate.

Selli (Golden) is also naturally well behaved.  I am also training her communicate with me daily on walks and at home.  We are also involved with training for competition in agility, rally and obedience.  I enjoy competing with her, but it is a way to show her off and to show off our relationship more than anything else.  The important thing about that sort of training, at least for me, is that it has taught me just how important communication with your dog is.  Most agility training is learning to give clear commands to your dog at the right moment.

Now my little red dog Duffy (Golden/Sheltie) is what I call a doggy/dog.  He does a number of those gross things dogs do that I never had to worry about with my Goldens like rolling in gross stuff, picking up dead things, eating cat poop, he even likes to bury treats when he doesn't want to eat them.  He is rather well behaved though, very pack oriented, never surly with us, Selli or our cat.  Doesn't counter-surf or get into the garbage.  Stays with us on walks doesn't chew stuff up.  He is a very good dog.  However, he has no interest in competition training.  He is much happier to have Selli do the work and he shares the treats.  I say he is well trained, although I think Selli did alot of the training.

As to who trains whom, both my dogs ring a bell when the want to go outside.  We trained Selli, she trained Duffy but they trained us to let them out every time they ring it.  I really don't care which it is as long as they go potty outside.

GoldenAC

He does a number of those gross things dogs do that I never had to worry about with my Goldens like rolling in gross stuff, picking up dead things, eating cat poop, he even likes to bury treats when he doesn't want to eat them.

Wow, you had goldens that DIDN'T do those things??  Every golden I have ever met has at least done the first two at some point and some do them on a regular basis or do the others as well.... 

schleide

This thread is really interesting and got me thinking...  To be honest - I would give anything for a laid back, pack oriented dog that was well behaved - but that is probably because I have the opposite :-)

I think that I would care a lot less about formal training if Wesley was generally well behaved.  If he was good with people and other dogs generally and I wasn't worried about things eliciting aggressive reactions from him - I really wouldn't care if when I told him "down" he dropped like his life depended on it and I wouldn't care if I had to nudge him off the couch rather than just telling him "off". 

But, for us, the 2 do go hand in hand though because each interaction we have with people and dogs that I control (ie - where there is no reaction) I feel that it is a step toward "well behaved" and we are getting that through formal training...  An example of this is last night, Wesley was laying at the foot of our bed (very normal) and I came over and bent over to kiss him goodnight (also very normal - and something I do as part of desencitization work we do with him to get him used to people bending over him) and for the first time IN A YEAR (so disappointing), he growled at me.  Now, if he wasn't well trained (or getting there), I am not sure what I would have done.  What I did do was stand up, say "eh eh, off, lie down" - no confrontation, no anger - just a firm message that growling was the wrong choice and dogs who growl do not get to lay on the bed, they need to lay on the floor away from all the good stuff like the window view...  So, for us, the ability to have a good relationship relies on formal training - although the ultimate goal is "good behavior."

Same situation for us here. While Rascal doesn't growl at me, he's a real pain with other people (he's actually super unless you try to, heaven forbid, touch him). When he starts fixating on someone and getting into protective mode, a couple of commands will bring his focus back on me and remind him that I'm in charge. It's really important. I would give up all the trained commands in the world and even some housebreaking if he'd just be a "friendly" dog, but since that's not happening, we're working on his issues the best way we know how. 

Neither one had an interest in rolling in gross stuff, Selli did it once and I told her "NO" and that was it.  Dexy only wanted to roll in fresh grass or the snow.  I know I was very lucky.  As to dead stuff, Dexy would carry little critters (usually voles) if he killed them, but if he didn't kill them, he left them alone.  He did bring me one or two baby bunnies, one he scared to death.  Selli loves chasing live critters, but she won't hurt them.  She just wants to sniff them.  Literally, she has found baby bunnies and works her best to nose them into running so she can chase them and sniff them.  When she sees a dead critter, even a rabbit; her favorite to chase, she will have no interest in it.

And cat poop?  Please, both would never think of it.  That is poop!  Something to be avoided.  I don't think our first Golden did any of those things either, certainly not rolling in gross stuff or the cat poop, even though all three of these dogs have lived with cats and litter boxes out in the open.

All three are somewhat closely related as far as Goldens go and come from lines known for temperament and trainability.  I make a point of going for the easy dogs. 

I see well-trained as meaning a dog knows many commands and does them reliably when requested. Well-behaved to me means they’ve learned their training well enough so that one doesn’t have to constantly ask them to get off of something, to not jump, etc. In other words, they’ve learned good behavior and unlearned or not learned any unwanted behavior through training, and they reliably only express good behavior and give a reliable response when asked to do something…while still being and acting like a dog, of course! I liken it to teaching children the difference between bad and good; once they learn it they use it, and while they may have slip-ups now and again (due to being tired, hot, ill, stressed, etc.), for the most part they behave well because they’ve been taught to, and the rewards for it are good. It’s the rare child, or dog, that will be well-behaved without also being well-trained (or taught, as I prefer to think of it), IMO. I also don’t believe I can have as good of a relationship with my dog unless he is well-trained; actually unless *I’m* well-trained, as we really train the people not the dogs.

When you state: “Not through "training", but through leadership, expectations, rules, corrections, praise, love and attention.” That actually *is* training; leadership, expectations, rules, corrections, praise are all training tools, as are love and attention. One essentially gives or withholds these from a dog (except for love!) based on what you’re trying to teach him. For example, if a dog jumps you withhold attention; he’ll learn to stop jumping because jumping causes a bad consequence; you praise him when he sits, he’ll learn sitting causes a good consequence.

My puppy has been pretty well-behaved for the most part from 10 weeks when I got him to his now 6 months of age. We have done training, but he was pretty well-behaved before that, especially for a rambunctious puppy. But I also want him to be well-trained, as not only does that make it better for him and others when people are around, but it could also someday save his life. If he wasn’t reliably trained to come when called, regardless of the distractions, I’d hate to think what might happen if he was chasing a squirrel into the road with a car coming.

I feel a dog can get just as much fun out of training as he can from chasing a ball, playing games, etc.; it all depends on how one does the training. Most training sessions can be made into a game; they should always end on a positive note, and the dog’s getting some yummy treats and lots of attention and praise…I can’t find one dog who doesn’t enjoy that. It’s pretty easy to tell a dog that’s bored with a training session form one that’s not.

spiritdogs

 I like a dog with both, but I'll take training.  After all, if my dog jumps all over me, or someone else, it's not as likely to be life threatening as if he ignores a command to "leave It - come".
 

I agree with this. Just this weekend, I caught Dakota munching on something while we were at the park. I told her to drop it - which she did right away and turns out it was a dead bird. Probably wouldn't harm her in the long run, but still. A dog that will drop dead meat on command is a dog that will drop anything on command. So, while she may counter surf, she knows those fail safe commands from being well trained.

I like these self-defined threads. Even when it's difficult to come up with a suitable explanation in 25 words or less. Often, it also says something about ourselves.

I suppose first, there is the definition of well-behaved, well-trained, and the difference, if there is any. I knew of a Sibe that won off-leash obedience awards. One day, his owner had him with him, off-leash, and it was not a competition, which may have been the key, and the dog sniffed something on the wind and took off, never to be seen again. A well trained dog who was also well-behaved. And he ran off, which was not what the owner wanted. Therefore, that running off was bad, from the owner's point of view. Shadow still barks at some strangers and he likes to play fast and hard. But he is trained.

The training, particularly the style of training I use, has opened up our communication, which has enriched our relationship. He is still the dog he always was and will be. It's just that now, the human knows how to communicate with him. How can he know what I want if I don't tell him? Along with that is specific work to encourage a more confident and easy approach to other dogs. And by communicating what is good, his behavior appears to change. He is still the same dog, though more confident and easy in other arenas of interaction. If you were to ask me, simply, is he a good dog, the answer would be yes. He is a good dog who is better trained than he was before. Able to fit into our group better than before. I firmly believe it's okay to have expectations of how our dogs should behave. And I have learned how to let him know that this is the way to be, act, etc. As it turns out, even though he has that independent sparkle, he is willing to do what you want if you know how to tell him what you want. And our relationship is better because I learned to communicate and have learned the principles of that communication.