Interesting read on dominance/behavior

huski

LOL... I'd probably say the dog hasn't been proofed enough :p

That can be the problem but probably you need to solve the problem at the root by attempting good old classcial condtioning first, then proof.

All conditioning requires renewal. I still enjoy having a laugh with some of the other gun dog owners who ask for a quick Stand For Exam. Of course my poodle is accepted as a "Curly" puppy. Never mind that she is three... I think i get some wick becuase a couple went out of the Gun dog group and got sheep chasers. ( BCs for USA)...

huski

condition them to learn that what you have is always going to be better, and more rewarding than whatever is over there.

Actually for a positive trainer , I don't like them to compare at all. I usually mange to con them fairly early on that i control access to what ever looks good, and the best chance ever of getting the good stuff is paying attention to me. We should start a conversation about value, could be interesting...

poodleOwned

 I find many Labs (we probably have more english than american bred labs here I am not too sure) and Goldies are not great at accepting people close in to them and take some while to get used ot it.

I don't believe this to be a breed related trait.  It's all about the early training.  I have never done any obedience trialing but plenty of actual gun dog training and AKC Hunt Tests training, trialing and judging.  I've seen Labs, Goldens, Chessies and a few Flat Coats from different areas of the country and with a wide range of pedigrees, from all Show lines to any combination of lines.  Just my experience.  In AKC Hunt Tests it's quite common to do what's called a walk up, which requires a dog to stop on command as the guns shoot and the birds fall as the dog and handler are walking.  I agree that many gun dogs break but this is strictly due to lack of good training.  Breaking when hunting or simulated hunting is very rewarding because the dog gets the bird.  Never allowing the dog the opportunity to break is the key.  Lots and lots of patience required which many hunters don't have when it comes to their hunting dogs. lol    They want so badly to take the dog hunting they tend to be more concerned with shooting birds than using the hunt as an opportunity to train their young dogs. 

We all make our assumptions based on what our personal experience has been.  I understand now what you are saying but my experience doesn't lead me to the same conclusion.

espencer

Chuffy

It is tackling widely believed myths

 

How wide? Can you provide an study with numbers?

The person who wrote the article clearly thought they were widely believed myths, and from the reports of several people on this board (things people have said in the ring or at class) supports it.  There are also books and studies etc supporting this flawed theory, and many of the general public don't realise that these have since been debunked.

poodleOwned

Actually for a positive trainer , I don't like them to compare at all. I usually mange to con them fairly early on that i control access to what ever looks good, and the best chance ever of getting the good stuff is paying attention to me. We should start a conversation about value, could be interesting...

I'm not sure what you mean by the above? Are you trying to suggest I don't use positive methods? 

I don't use corrections (apart from a NRM and removal of reward) when doing drive training. Sometimes, you can't "con them", they know whatever else over there is good - take my scent hound for example; scenting is very high value for her and she knows it. You can't keep her nose off the ground forever and it's not something you can just teach her is boring. Calling her off a scent is like calling your Poodle off a prey item. When she's on a scent you could shove food under her nose and she doesn't notice. So I teach her what I have is better, more satisfying, because it will give her drive satisfaction as well. Just a couple of days ago she got out of the house and ran onto the road scenting madly, and I was able to call her off the scent with my recall command word we use for training in drive. 

As you experienced with your Poodle, sometimes even if you try to "con" them early on, their instinct will take over and it's those times (IMO) that it's most important the dog will still obey your commands.

JackieG

In AKC Hunt Tests it's quite common to do what's called a walk up, which requires a dog to stop on command as the guns shoot and the birds fall as the dog and handler are walking.  I agree that many gun dogs break but this is strictly due to lack of good training.  Breaking when hunting or simulated hunting is very rewarding because the dog gets the bird. 

I would expect most dogs to hold steady on a walk up. The difference is that a person is approaching them in our example who will examine them. They lose points for moving paws, let alone a body movement.

.

JackieG

  Never allowing the dog the opportunity to break is the key.  Lots and lots of patience required which many hunters don't have when it comes to their hunting dogs. lol    They want so badly to take the dog hunting they tend to be more concerned with shooting birds than using the hunt as an opportunity to train their young dogs. 

I just wish that our gun dogs would get used for something!!!! Hunting here is a bit touchy, there are anit hunting activists and we have had droughts for so long that the bird populations are down. The life for a lot of gun dogs is a life in the backyard. In summer the kids wil play with them but in winter it is a pretty solitary existence. I feel so sorry for many of them.

I agree there is a great difference in what you describe and a walk up but I guess I just don't agree that it's a breed trait.

  It is a shame that more hunting dogs never get to actually hunt but with a motivated owner they can certainly play the hunt test game.  Many hunters get involved to keep their hunting dogs tuned up but many a hunt test competitor will never actually go hunting for the reasons you mention and others. 

spiritdogs

Train early, train often, train with no pain.

I am so putting that in my signature if you don't mind. Those are words I live by! 

oranges81

spiritdogs

Train early, train often, train with no pain.

 

I am so putting that in my signature if you don't mind. Those are words I live by! 

Well, I can't really claim credit for this idea, but if you want these words in your signature, I'm all for it.  One thing I have come to know is that even with high drive, predatory, or easily distracted dogs,  it is the early convincing that the human is the source of all good things that comes in really handy.  It's the basis for us teaching the dog some self control.  Those wicked good things become a reinforcement for the dog ONLY if he answers our request FIRST.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premack%27s_principle

If this theory didn't work, kids would all be eating ice cream for supper;-)

huski

I'm not sure what you mean by the above? Are you trying to suggest I don't use positive methods? 

Actually, i don't have a view at all. I haven't seen you train so i don't know how you train. I have seen some so called positive trainers that are absolute thugs in my opinion, and some so called trad trainers who were quite gentle and considerate.

As i explained before, my dogs are trained to use drive methods. My dog will "go onto drive" (your term) on  a phrase or on the sight of a starting post. I am starting to think that " going into drive" as a phrase will soon be superseded by some recent work that has been done in neuro science. We will instead say that a dog is going into the PLAY emotion. The caps are as they are written in the literature.I am not yelling. It is not cranky stuff, it is fairly recent science.

What i am leary off in usng drive methods is that we don't tip over into sterotypical behaviours or that we don't create scenarios where the "drive satisfaction" is so repititive and lacking in forms of novelty that this can happen. Big notes of caution in these issues are when a dog is not allowed to or has no access to other forms of satisfaction other than short periods of drive developement.

I think too that we must be aware that drive satiisfaction could also be explained in behavourist (reward terms) as well. I have found the demonstration of the phrase "training in drive" somewhat confusing. I have seen videos where this has been claimed and it looks like a pretty poor play session to me, or yet another form of luring just that it involves some a toy or bite object. I have also seen this represented as basically fixed interval reward systems with a bit of food biffed about the place.

Then again i train with some  people that are awesome drive trainers. They are wonderful to watch and their dogs are just so so good. Many of them use joint jargons (Behavourist/drive) and offer many of the things i talked about. They offer novelty, emotional involvement, erratic and variable reinforcement schedules, full and complete lives for their dogs, and full socialisation. I learn a lot off them.

 Even with all of this, there are times when other novel stimuli will "beat " what you have. Form what others share with us in terms of solid trials, it is likely that having regular relaible reinforcement is as strong a factor as to whether it is drive based or not. A 100% relaible behaviour is a statistical nonsense. Probably 99.5 times out of 100 i can call her off prey. I certainly can't remember the last failure. She is quite a social dog, and i can reliably call her off playing with other dogs.

What i do find a strong factor ((and one reason amongt many) that i really avoid ah ahs nos ,nrms etc), is that a gruff or low toned voice is  very very novel to my dogs. My older girl will drop 100 meters away on a loud vocal command to her. It means something it is not buried in the noise it is not usual. My younger boy, who came to us thinking that his name was "no" and "leave it" and would pretty much ignore any human vocal intonation changed within a month of not hearing this stuff all the time. I had the need to call him off a cat and he responded instantly.

poodleOwned

Big notes of caution in these issues are when a dog is not allowed to or has no access to other forms of satisfaction other than short periods of drive developement.

I train my dog in food drive, so obviously she has to have access to food at times other than when we are training in drive - although, I always look at feeding time as an opportunity to train ;) :)

I think too that we must be aware that drive satiisfaction could also be explained in behavourist (reward terms) as well. I have found the demonstration of the phrase "training in drive" somewhat confusing. I have seen videos where this has been claimed and it looks like a pretty poor play session to me, or yet another form of luring just that it involves some a toy or bite object. I have also seen this represented as basically fixed interval reward systems with a bit of food biffed about the place.

 

IMO there are two main parts to drive training, building drive and training in drive. When building drive I get my dog to 'chase' the food I have, like you would get a dog to chase a prey item, when you see this done properly it's pretty clear looking at the dog if they are in drive or not. The responses I get to commands are a good example of this, they are quicker, faster and sharper just like you would expect from a dog working well in drive.

The same can be said for dogs I've seen working in drive. I've seen dogs working in drive with the food or prey item on the ground quite a distance away from where they and the handler are working, the dog maintaining that awesome focus that you get when you work a dog in drive. That's the goal IMO - getting the food or toy off you so you can have the dog working away from it and maintaining drive.

I've never known a dog who is properly trained in drive who ever gets bored or sick of their drive reward. After all, isn't that why we train in drive? Because working in drive is as much a reward for the dog as the motivator (toy/food).

huski

When building drive I get my dog to 'chase' the food I have, like you would get a dog to chase a prey item, when you see this done properly it's pretty clear looking at the dog if they are in drive or not. The responses I get to commands are a good example of this, they are quicker, faster and sharper just like you would expect from a dog working well in drive.

Oh yes. Another jargon issue. As a matter of interest I was introduced to doing this with my Lab over a decade ago, and this practice has been around  for at least three decades that i know off. We used to teach the two foods game and how to throw food in a local dog club programme.

The better response to commands is also a  sympton of correct motivation, and over my realtively short time training i have seen many path ways to this.

huski

I've seen dogs working in drive with the food or prey item on the ground quite a distance away from where they and the handler are working, the dog maintaining that awesome focus that you get when you work a dog in drive.

I guess that i only have to look at my dogs for this. Quite early on they learn that food or a toy or a game or whatever could come from anywhere anytime. In fact i make sure that the sight of the food or object is not the cue for performance. If it is you have done something very wrong. I expect my dogs to work over and heel around the prey item or food. I teach them this, much the same way as i expect focus even if they are heeling in a very crowded space.If you look at the focus stuff that say a trainer like Chris Bach uses, very very early on they learn to ignore the food or the toy and do the behaviour . I don't think that Chris Bach would call herself a "drive" trainer.:))

huski

I've never known a dog who is properly trained in drive who ever gets bored or sick of their drive reward. After all, isn't that why we train in drive? Because working in drive is as much a reward for the dog as the motivator (toy/food).

Again, i have seen dogs that tip into a kind of adrenalin hangover when used in drive incorrectly. You have to watch out for this. It is much much less likely to happen with food. We also have to acknowledge that this statement is very similar in behavourist terms to the self reinforcing behaviour that trainers such as Ian Dunbar talk about. I prefer to get there with  an erratic variety of rewards be it food, toys games pats. You also have to watch out for blocks that prevent dogs going into drive or being happy to work, which is a usual problem at the trialling level. Any competent trainer will help you with this .They know from first had experience what triallists go through.

poodleOwned

Oh yes. Another jargon issue. As a matter of interest I was introduced to doing this with my Lab over a decade ago, and this practice has been around  for at least three decades that i know off. We used to teach the two foods game and how to throw food in a local dog club programme.

Yes, it's definitely not a new method :) I know people who use the two food or two toy game and it can be great drive builder, a bit different to the way I build drive though but everyone has their own methods.

The better response to commands is also a  sympton of correct motivation, and over my realtively short time training i have seen many path ways to this.

I've always used food as a motivator, but using it in drive training has produced much better results. I'm not using any different food, but the way I'm using it has changed. 

I guess that i only have to look at my dogs for this. Quite early on they learn that food or a toy or a game or whatever could come from anywhere anytime. In fact i make sure that the sight of the food or object is not the cue for performance. If it is you have done something very wrong. I expect my dogs to work over and heel around the prey item or food. I teach them this, much the same way as i expect focus even if they are heeling in a very crowded space.If you look at the focus stuff that say a trainer like Chris Bach uses, very very early on they learn to ignore the food or the toy and do the behaviour . I don't think that Chris Bach would call herself a "drive" trainer.:))

I agree, my dog starts going into drive when I give the command words 'are you ready to work?' because I've conditioned her to learn that means she's about to get drive satisfaction. It's important to be able to switch them on without showing them the food or prey item. That's a big trap many owners fall into especially when they start wanting to trial, they have a dog that won't switch on when they know they don't have food or toys on them.

Does it really matter if someone calls the training they do drive training, if that's what it is (in their terms)? It's not like it's a new concept - people have been talking about drive for a long time. I'm not overly familiar with Chris Bach so I can't say if I use methods similar to his or not. I don't really care if he calls himself a "drive" trainer, what I do care about is how I train my dog and I call what I do drive training. Other people can call it Whacky Doo training for all I care ;)

Again, i have seen dogs that tip into a kind of adrenalin hangover when used in drive incorrectly. You have to watch out for this. It is much much less likely to happen with food. We also have to acknowledge that this statement is very similar in behavourist terms to the self reinforcing behaviour that trainers such as Ian Dunbar talk about. I prefer to get there with  an erratic variety of rewards be it food, toys games pats. You also have to watch out for blocks that prevent dogs going into drive or being happy to work, which is a usual problem at the trialling level. Any competent trainer will help you with this .They know from first had experience what triallists go through.

I know that my dog is most motivated by food - toys and praise take a back seat to food. I would never get quite the great result I get using anything but food, so that's how I chose to build drive. A lot of the training I do revolves around getting the level of drive I want in a variety of situations. It's important to do good foundation work so you do have a dog who will work reliably in a range of situations. 

Let me add some more to this. Call it drive training, if you wish. It is still rewarding training. My BIL has Cassie, a Blue Merle Aussie. She lives to herd and cut, even if it's just a ball. She will herd it around and then cut and hold until you come to her and take the ball. And no one trained her to do that. It's her "drive." And she will do it until she drops. We had to get our nephew, BIL's son to quit kicking and throwing the ball so that she could rest. Yes, she will take treats. But nothing beats "working." And I have used it to get her to sit or down. As long as she gets to herd and cut that ball one more time. Just like Spiritdog's frisbee-crazed dog. A reward doesn't always have to be food. It often is for my dog and for many others. But a dog does what is rewarding, regardless of whatever we call it. I know that will offend many a control freak.

And I've been called a control freak for using treat training but who is to say that isn't the drive of my dog? To procur resources. He is an excellent hunter, even if he doesn't always eat his prey. Last time was an opossum. But they play dead really well, so he lost interest. After he left it, I put it over the fence and the next day, it was gone. Either a loose dog got it or, more likely, it got away with just a few scrapes from an encounter with Shadow. Probably telling it's possum friends to stay away from my house, which is fine with me.

Whether we like it or not, dogs seek reward and avoid punishment. Period, paragraph, new book. That's why any of the "quadrants" work. If operant conditioning didn't work, then corrections or punishments wouldn't work. My goal is to avoid wasted motion and go to the reward, since that is what the dog is seeking, anyway. It's not that I'm wishy washy or don't like punishing or correcting a dog. I just like being efficient.

And I don't say that just to appear "balanced." I couldn't give a rat's posterior if I appear to be "balanced." Why walk ten feet around something when you can walk right up to it?

Sure, some dogs respond well to corrections but even then, I think they morph into cues for the dog. If they really were corrections or punishments, they would work more efficiently. I think some dogs respond well to "pressure" which doesn't usually involve treats but does involve a pathway that leads them to reward.

 I love how people like to talk about methods in terms of whether they are being used "properly" or not. You can get results with just about any method no matter how brutally or clumsily you apply it. I know because I haven't been clicker training Kivi very well for the past year, but it still worked. It's kind of like the dog food debate and how you just don't know what "best" is until you've tried it and seen for yourself. So I try things for myself, and I've been stream-lining it for the past few years. What happens if I ignore what I think I know about dominance and hierarchies, just as an example. I discover for the most part I don't see it. There are times I do, but I see a lot of fear, uncertainty, and dogs just doing what they think they want to do. Leadership is another one that's been annoying me lately. What does being a good leader even mean? It's such an abstract, subjective concept. What happens if I pretend leadership doesn't exist in my house and we just all try to get what we want? Surprise surprise, there's no difference! That's all we were doing all along.

Sorry, I think that was a bit OT. Just rambling.

ron2

Let me add some more to this. Call it drive training, if you wish. It is still rewarding training. My BIL has Cassie, a Blue Merle Aussie. She lives to herd and cut, even if it's just a ball. She will herd it around and then cut and hold until you come to her and take the ball. And no one trained her to do that. It's her "drive." And she will do it until she drops. We had to get our nephew, BIL's son to quit kicking and throwing the ball so that she could rest. Yes, she will take treats. But nothing beats "working." And I have used it to get her to sit or down. As long as she gets to herd and cut that ball one more time. Just like Spiritdog's frisbee-crazed dog. A reward doesn't always have to be food. It often is for my dog and for many others. But a dog does what is rewarding, regardless of whatever we call it. I know that will offend many a control freak.

Of course, we should always use what is most motivating and valuable to our dogs. Some trainers who use drive call it the 'ultimate reward' (if you use that jargon ;)).

Drive is just a subconscious reaction to a stimuli, food and prey drive are the most common 'drives' people train in. A dog chasing a ball is exhibiting prey drive, because all prey drive is, is the urge to chase and grab a moving item. A prey driven dog may have a high value for a toy like a frisbee because they've learnt that the toy means they are going to get drive satisfaction - often you see these dogs 'cued' into drive when they see the toy. My Siberian is a prime example of this. He is very prey driven and we often train with his favourite toy. He's a bit older and I've never done any 'formal' drive training with him so he doesn't work as well on cue words like my younger dog does, but you can see his whole demeanor change when he sees his toy.

And I've been called a control freak for using treat training but who is to say that isn't the drive of my dog? To procur resources. He is an excellent hunter, even if he doesn't always eat his prey. Last time was an opossum. But they play dead really well, so he lost interest. After he left it, I put it over the fence and the next day, it was gone. Either a loose dog got it or, more likely, it got away with just a few scrapes from an encounter with Shadow. Probably telling it's possum friends to stay away from my house, which is fine with me.

My prey driven dog is also very food driven and he's never eaten any of the prey he's killed. Once the fun of the chase is over he tends to lose interest.

Whether we like it or not, dogs seek reward and avoid punishment. Period, paragraph, new book. That's why any of the "quadrants" work. If operant conditioning didn't work, then corrections or punishments wouldn't work. My goal is to avoid wasted motion and go to the reward, since that is what the dog is seeking, anyway. It's not that I'm wishy washy or don't like punishing or correcting a dog. I just like being efficient.

But is positive reinforcement always the most 'efficient' method for every dog?

And I don't say that just to appear "balanced." I couldn't give a rat's posterior if I appear to be "balanced." Why walk ten feet around something when you can walk right up to it?

Sure, some dogs respond well to corrections but even then, I think they morph into cues for the dog. If they really were corrections or punishments, they would work more efficiently. I think some dogs respond well to "pressure" which doesn't usually involve treats but does involve a pathway that leads them to reward.

I believe in using what works best for each dog, I don't really bother thinking about "positive" or "negative" or whatever. I do reward based training and I always strive to use what is most effective for my dogs, and what gets the best out of them, be that corrections/punishments/rewards/etc.