huski

I didn't say it was just working dogs? I said that even working dogs can have variation in the litter. You could pick any puppy out of a working litter and it could be suitable for work but some can be more suitable for you as an owner and for the purpose you are working them for than others. Everyone is different, I do my research but I still like to assess the pups in the litter. I will be living with the dog for 12-14 years. You may consider it a waste of time but I would still assess a litter of super working line pups how I would assess any other litter of pups I was looking at.

Even in a litter of super working dogs there can be some variation in temperament - all the pups could still have great working potential but there will always be pups that are more rank driven than others etc which can help or hinder you depending on what you want to live and work with. I'd test the pups to see what kind of food and prey drive they display, especially outside their usual environment to test their nerves. I'd look to see how they react to a new person entering their environment. If you've done your research right and the lines are what you want and produce good consistent working dogs you'd be giving yourself the biggest advantage.

My ultimate goal with my dogs is to enjoy them. Simple as that :) Other things like competing etc are just things that I do with them, and while I do have training goals etc that is all just one part of the big picture.

I think most people who know me and have met my dog would probably know I have reasonable idea about how to train driven dogs, and I’ve put a lot of work into getting my dog to a relatively good level of obedience. I can have her off leash anywhere, her recall is super, she works nicely under high distraction, when I am training her getting her to leave food or ignore distractions is easy and I have no problem with it. She can have food shoved under her nose and it’s like she can’t even see it. I trained all of that without any physical corrections and I am pretty happy with her level of obedience, she’s not a particularly easy dog to handle. Counter surfing was something we tried to manage for a long time, and I could easily put her in a stay while I was in the kitchen and she wouldn’t steal anything – no problems. But there were still those occasions where she’d manage to steal something when no one was there, or if someone other than me was in the kitchen, or if I hadn’t actively put her away or in a stay etc. She would eat raw chillis, got extremely sick from eating 70% dark chocolate, a loaf of bread etc. I am not by any means saying that using the e-collar was the only option, but it was extremely effective, and considering this was a problem that was going on for years, I don’t believe that anything else would have fixed it that quickly or easily. The e-collar was on a low stim and most people can’t feel the level I use on D, so it wasn’t causing her a lot of pain or stress, if anything it was irritating/annoying to her. It stopped counter surfing when I wasn’t there because it wasn’t associated with me. It only took maybe three stims to eliminate the behaviour. I don’t believe it’s effected our relationship at all, certainly I haven’t noticed a difference in how keen she is to work or her eagerness to learn or train. I know more now than I did when D was little and I won’t allow counter surfing to develop with my next dog in the first place by managing it so the opportunity to steal food is never given to them, but if using an e-collar in this situation makes people think I am lazy, or lacking commitment, or a bad dog owner or trainer or cruel and horrible then so be it. I am happy with the decision. I would do it again and I am not going to lie about using a tool I’ve had success with because it’s easier to pretend I don’t use them or it makes me look better to say I’ve never used physical aversives when training my dogs. I am happy with my relationship with my dog, and how we work together as a team. If people think that using an e-collar has ruined or tainted that relationship then I can’t do much to change their minds. I honestly don’t think it has.

Corvus, if someone came to you for training, how many chances do you think you have to get it right? How many methods do you think you can get them to use before finding the "best" one? Maybe you can have 1000 shots at training something with your dogs but you rarely will have more than one shot when someone comes to you for training. BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by Daisy being "in trouble again" or what led you to think I had never tried anything other than an e-collar to stop counter surfing. Implying I wouldn't do the best by my dogs is insulting and arrogant. It wasn't safe to have a dog hell bent on counter surfing at the hot plate with boiling saucepans or trying to take food from the oven or eating dangerous things. Stopping the behaviour quickly and effectively WAS the best option for the dog.

Each to their own, like I said before I am sure there were many ways that you could have trained it, this just worked best for me and there is nothing wrong with how I trained it. I like letting the dogs in the kitchen with me, it's nice to spend time with them when I get home from being at work all day. I didn't want her on a mat, I just didn't want her counter surfing. Doing it this way meant I don't have to manage the behaviour by making sure there is never anything on the counters ever in reach of Daisy, it is safer for her because it means she won't try to steal anything in the first place. Keeping in mind this is a dog who had already learnt counter surfing WAS a rewarding behaviour. Management is great for dogs that haven't developed those habits so you can prevent them from forming but it doesn't help stop behaviours that are already habitual. I could crate her every time I use the kitchen but that wouldn't stop her wanting to counter surf if the opportunity ever arose. If anyone else has questions about how and why I trained it this way, feel free to contact me directly either in the thread or by PM. :)

Wouldn't that be management not training? Or if it was training it would be training me and not the dog. Besides that, you can't always keep your kitchen counter clear of food, at some point you'll need to use that space to cook on. I could be chopping or rolling or cooking something and turn my back for a second (literally, to put something on the other side of the counter) and Daisy would jump up and steal something. She'd even try to steal food as I was cooking it even if I was just standing there. Correcting her myself was causing conflict between us. She would actually try to jump up and lick hot saucepans and would stick her head in the oven to try and take food. Aside from being irritating counter surfing can actually be really dangerous. I'd rather teach my dog not to do it than have to manage it forever which isn't very realistic or practical.

Just to clarify a bit further... I do think that compulsion is quickest for stopping a behaviour, that is it's purpose. Positive reinforcement is quickest for teaching a new behaviour. When I wanted to stop my dog counter surfing in the kitchen I used an e-collar and it did stop it, right away. There may be other ways to stop that behaviour, and I'm not saying one is better than the other but I don't think that there is really any argument that compulsion is the quickest way to stop it. I don't really think of the quadrants as something to obsess over, I have watched Steve train a dog using all four quadrants within a couple of minutes. You can mix them up and I don't think it's something to be guided or driven or restricted by. I think it's really dog dependent because every dog responds differently and is driven by different things. ETA: When I used the e-collar to stop counter surfing it was on a low stim so it gave me accuracy without any fallout. It took maybe three reps that first time to stop the behaviour. It's not for everyone, but it is certainly quick. It also meant that she would stay off the counter when I wasn't around because I wasn't part of the equation when she received a stim. This was a dog who had years of reward history for counter surfing so it was very ingrained.

Sure does, but you were the one who said as long as the dog and owner are happy together results aren't important... And what the 'best' result for one dog and handler may not be for another. It depends on the dog and what the owner is striving to achieve. Shouldn't all trainers strive to give their clients and their dogs the best results they can No, not at all. I haven't said that anywhere and I certainly don't believe it is true that compulsion is always better or quicker That is why working towards getting the best result you can is so important. What method will get you there is hugely dependent on the dog and owner you have in front of you.

It's ok to be 'fussy' and have high standards about that if that is what you want, we all have different goals and things we rank more important than others. He is probably a bit desensitized to the word 'close' if you are saying it all the time which also suggests he doesn't really understand what you are asking. Not achieving that goal as a handler doesn't mean you've failed, you just haven't found a way to train it yet that works for both of you.

Do you mean getting him to walk on a loose leash? Or walk on a loose leash and maintain that position all the time? I don't think that sounds like something that would be a big failing as a handler, though I guess we all have different expectations and priorities. I personally don't care if my dogs walk in front of me, as long as they don't pull on the leash as I find walking dogs that pull on the leash really unpleasant. Yes, and I think it would also depend on how ingrained the behaviour is and how strong the reward history is when it comes to counter surfing. Hi Jules, Steve's been training me as a trainer for a little while now. :) Who could resist gravy?! Hehe :)

Not talking in regards to whether you are using rewards or aversives etc, but Luke W, how long would you persevere with a method without seeing a positive change or consistent (desired) results? How long would anyone else persevere with something before deciding it wasn't working? The above just made me curious. I would question a training method that took a long time to start showing the desired outcome. Obviously the big picture things we train can take years to perfect, but we can see progress and know we are on the right track.

SP that is where I would start. Work on teaching her you are more fun and valuable and then once she's no longer seeking out kids to run over and play with them you could work on how she actually interacts with them (if that's what you wanted to do).

I think the other thing to remember is that the dog decides what it finds aversive, not us.

Ok, let me clarify. I thought it went without saying that people want the best results they can get, not just any result. I would assume that it goes without saying that it's not really the best result if there is a fall out between the dog and handler. How many people that come to you for training Corvus are happy for you to tell them that it doesn’t matter if the dog stops biting people, as long as the dog and owner are happy together? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but people seek out the help of a professional trainers because they have a problem they need assistance with. They aren’t interested in going to a trainer who can’t tell them they can help fix the problem so as to give them a good result. As I said above, I thought it went without saying that I’m talking about getting the best result possible, and I’d argue if you could call something a successful result if the ‘side effect’ is damage between the dog and owner’s relationship. I talk to a lot of very desperate dog owners each day that will come for a consult as a last resort, if we can’t show them in that time frame (generally two hours) that results are achievable, and give them hope that their dog’s behaviour can change, their next stop is often having the dog PTS. Luke W talked above about “positive” training sometimes being harder or taking longer than using compulsion or aversives. If you train dogs professionally and see a lot clients taking time to show great results is not a luxury you are often afforded (regardless of what method you are talking about using). I don’t care if you use positive or negative training methods or whatever, IMO training should be results driven. The method you decide to use for each dog or handler should be about getting the best result possible for them not about politics or being able to say x is better than y.

I think it would be a real shame if in 20 years time the only acceptable training method was positive reinforcement. Do you really believe that every dog can be trained using "100% positive training" only? Taking into account the difference in each dog and handler, the different goals, behaviour problems and purpose for which people train I am always a bit perplexed when someone thinks that there is a one size fits all approach for training. Personally, I don't see how anyone could train '100% positively' because there is always some element of stress in learning. Removing a reward from a dog can be more aversive than giving a correction with a prong or e-collar. It's about context and the dog you have in front of you. I don't really understand the us and them mentality that these kinds of threads generate. I'm not sure what we think will be achieved from running down other trainers or their methods. If someone wants to be a DELTA qualified trainer and use only those methods and style of training props to them, but forcing that style of training on to everyone else is tiring and I don't understand why so many people waste their energy trying to convince everyone else that their training style is the only one that is 'right'. Dog training is not black and white and there is a lot more to it than being a training who uses positive reinforcement only and being a trainer who uses compulsion or aversives. I really could not care less about the methods other trainers use, I'm far more interested in seeing the results they get with the dogs and humans they work with. If a 100% positive only approach is getting them super results, that's brilliant. If a trainer uses compulsion or aversives and achieves super results, great! Most pet owners that seek help from professional trainers don't know or care about quadrants or training theory in general. They care about the results you can help them to achieve with their dogs. That's why I find these kinds of debates (and we all love a good debate) generally become really tiring, pointless and honestly quite pathetic. Training shouldn't be about positive vs negative, at least I don't think it should be. It should be about getting the best result for dog and handler. I'm not sure what else matters more than that.

It really depends on your goals! Those things could help, but if the issue is when he is around and playing with others dogs I'd be looking at how you are using other dogs as rewards and his value for them. If the problems you want to fix come from having him have more value for other dogs than you and your rewards then I'd reconsider using other dogs as a high value reward. JMHO though :)

TCM, there is nothing wrong with wanting to let him to play with other dogs if this is what you want, but as you've mentioned previously in the thread that his value for other dogs exceeds his value for you and the rewards you offer I'd be rethinking allowing him to learn other dogs are of a high value. Why put some more work into teaching him to play with you when other dogs are around instead of letting him learn when you go to the park, other dogs are the number one most valuable thing out there and his number one reward? If you don't care if he can be obedient when other dogs are around then it doesn't matter, but if you want him to be more reliable it's something to think about. I'm not teaching him dogs are higher value, but other dogs do have a value for him .... but if i walk away from him he is next to me in a heart beat without me saying a word... so can I assume that means he values me more than the other dogs? I have the food, food is his number 1. Your words were 'why would I not reward that with something he regards a high value?'. I was just responding to that :) Earlier in the thread you were asking about why he'd leave a game with you to go and play with other dogs. If he never chooses to play with other dogs over obeying you and you don't see any room for improvement in his behaviour or obedience, then you have nothing to worry about. I wouldn't use other dogs as a reward if my dog already had a high value for them, I think it's a bit counter productive for the overall goal.

TCM, there is nothing wrong with wanting to let him to play with other dogs if this is what you want, but as you've mentioned previously in the thread that his value for other dogs exceeds his value for you and the rewards you offer I'd be rethinking allowing him to learn other dogs are of a high value. Why not put some more work into teaching him to play with you when other dogs are around instead of letting him learn when you go to the park, other dogs are the number one most valuable thing out there and his number one reward? If you don't care if he can be obedient when other dogs are around then it doesn't matter, but if you want him to be more reliable it's something to think about. ETA: Even if you are rewarding him with play with other dogs for good behaviour (i.e. sitting or staying) allowing him to see other dogs are a high value reward when his value for you isn't that high is IMHO going to hinder rather than help you.

Totally agree with this bit! :) I do make sure that I control what is happening, so she is not allowed to release herself to go play or to her reward or anything else. I do have trouble with PEOPLE wanting to constantly feed her, though LOL my dog is definitely a 'self feeder'. People don't even have to offer their food to her and she's keen to take it! Though, I do a bit of work with her to trick her so she has learnt that even if food looks free it isn't if it's not coming from me.

If she doesn't have much if little value for other dogs than allowing play in that situation probably didn't make a big difference to her ability to work. But if play with other dogs is something that is allowed all the time and the dog does have a high value for other dogs then I do think it could make a difference to the dog's ability to give everything it has to give, especially if it's just gotten a reward not associated with the handler prior to going into the ring. It may not make a difference to some dogs but allowing your dog to constantly seek reward away from the handler can effect training.

I definitely don't think that dogs that aren't neutral can't work well, I am sure they can. Though I would wonder if a dog who has just played with another dog outside the ring immediately before going in to compete is really going to give 120% - not aiming that at you specifically obviously as I don't know you or your dog but it would be something I would be asking myself. It really comes down to personal preference, I don't have a need or desire to have a dog that wants to play lots with other dogs, and I don't think raising a dog to be neutral is lots of hard work. Certainly IMO no more work than teaching your dog other dogs have a high value then having to also teach them and reinforce that you are always of a higher value. I don't think people who let their dogs play with others have anything to prove, I'm just not interested in raising a dog that way myself.

I don't think there is a right or wrong, just doing what you want to do and what works to achieve your goals. Lots of people take their dogs to dog parks and allow free play and end up with a dog they can't control because their value for other dogs is so high and I agree a huge part of that is their failure to build value for the handler, but why create more work for yourself if you don't need to? I could socialise a puppy to value other dogs but then I'd have to put the work in to ensure their value always stays higher for me. If you have a neutral dog it makes it easier because there is little to no positive value there to begin with. I'm not saying it's for everyone, I just find it easier for me to reach my goals. I often work long hours too and my dogs are home alone for a long period of time during the day (and then when I come home I spend more time working at night) but I don't need free play with other dogs to wear them out or make them happy.

I think work and play should be the same thing to a dog, they need to get enjoyment out of it so they have a high value for working with you above anything else. Having a dog that is distracted easily by others is a really common problem faced by lots of dog owners, and it happens when the dog has a higher value for other dogs than they do their owner and the rewards you have to offer. Think about all the things your dog loves doing and rank them on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being their most favourite thing. Where do you 'rank' on that list? What does your dog find most rewarding aside from other dogs? Getting your dog to work under the distraction of other dogs is something that can take time as you will need to build their value for the reward and you (the reward can change depending on what your dog values - food, tug, fetch etc). It doesn't happen overnight but with consistency and good training it is definitely possible! ETA: The other thing I would add is that you should always finish a game (like tug or fetch) leaving your dog wanting more. Never wait for your dog to say 'ok, I've had enough. This is boring, what else is fun around here?'. If that means you only play fetch for 30 seconds, then that is all you play so that next time you bring the ball out your dog is super excited and can't wait for more. The duration you play a game can be increased easily enough, but it's important to make sure your dog is always desperate for more.

I didn't say free play automatically compromises obedience. I said whether you'd encourage your dog to develop a positive value for others is dependent on your goals and it is a risk to allow free play if you want a neutral dog. Some people are happy to take that risk and to have a dog that values other dogs and enjoys free play, others don't want that so don't encourage lots of free play. As I said there is no right or wrong, it just depends on what you want from your dog.