Longcoat

I am more concerned about the food trained dogs that a starved for 3 days prior to a training session to generate higher levels of food motivation I agree Angelsun that the more training established without food motivation, the greater the reliability. What about training with food makes a dog unreliable? Food is a reward just as praise is a reward. Just because you train with food does not mean you don't or can't also use praise. Would you expect your dog to work with no reward whatsoever? No food, toys or praise? ETA: Impossible Bedazzled! Don't you know dogs who are rewarded with food are unreliable and don't work well or know how to think?? ;) Praise rewards are far more transportable than food rewards with nothing to wean off. A dog trained on praise reward will work anytime, anywhere, any place. How do you think yesterday's dogs worked before positive reinforcement trends evolved???

I am more concerned about the food trained dogs that a starved for 3 days prior to a training session to generate higher levels of food motivation I agree Angelsun that the more training established without food motivation, the greater the reliability.

Correct

Simple question: Can you use food/toy rewards in official obedience or agility trials???.

Absolutely not true... recognised breeds are banned or restricted in several places, all over the world. Undeniabley Zayda. Longcoat you seem to dwell in a very simplistic world. The APBT was subject to overnight restriction or banning is some places but was never a recognised breed in the first place. It has been raised before about ANKC recognised breeds banned in certain council areas, but the council bylaws of the councils mentioned did not contain any such thing by memory???. A council could easily be sued for damages banning an ANKC recognised breed overnight requiring people to get rid of their dogs...........won't happen in Australia.

The dog being leashed is in it's favour............I don't know about an 11 year old handler maintaining effective control though

Depends on how advanced the dog is in its training I guess - I know of dogs trained in prey drive who will chase after live prey if left to their own devices, but wouldn't give it a second glance if training and their owner can call them off live prey because the dog knows that compliance with commands is the best and quickest way to get drive satisfaction. I had a problem with my dog a few weeks ago getting to training early and on the field before us was soccer practice. I ran him around for a warm up and could only get focus for a few seconds at a time due to the distraction of all the guys running around on field kicking a ball In prey, the soccer practice that he had never seen before left to his own devices he would have joined in. Although I could call him away, I couldn't get proper focus in that distraction and he was rubber necking around my legs watching the soccer guys.

Stephen Lindsay, during his recent seminar in Sydney, put it nicely about reinforcement/rewards... in order for a reinforcer (reward) to work, it must exceed the dog's expectations. Therefore if the distraction is greater than the reward, in the case of stock chasing, then the above statement is not entirely correct and will not work. It is not the potential for reward that is going to work, but rather if the reward violates the dog's expectation....is higher than the dog ever anticipated. Thinking out loud here....Could be dog is working for the potential for a higher level of reward but if we kept increasing, then it becomes predictable and no longer exceeds expectations. Sometimes it's difficult to find a reward greater than the distraction especially prey driven distractions. What if you are training the dog in prey drive? Then you have the prey reward in your hand. Sometimes the prey reward in hand is not as exciting as the prey running across the field though

I'm not sure whether that is out of context, but it doesn't sound right to me. A reinforcer is just that, it is something that reinforces behavior, making it more likely to happen in the future. If I train with a lot of high value rewards, I assume the dog will "expect" a high value reward, but if I then change to a lower value reward (like boring kibble) the behavior is still maintained, or continues to become stronger. I highly doubt that in feeding kibble I am "exceeding" the dogs expectations, but the reward still works... We did a test a couple of weeks ago at training with the instructors Belgian Malinios to prove that Stephen Lindsay is correct. The Malinios is toy motivated which completes a routine perfectly with a toy reward and play. Tried the same exercise with food and worked the "first" time only and failed the next three attempts. Used the toy reward again with a perfect routine. Lessening the reward produced a failed performance in this test.

Stephen Lindsay, during his recent seminar in Sydney, put it nicely about reinforcement/rewards... in order for a reinforcer (reward) to work, it must exceed the dog's expectations. Therefore if the distraction is greater than the reward, in the case of stock chasing, then the above statement is not entirely correct and will not work. It is not the potential for reward that is going to work, but rather if the reward violates the dog's expectation....is higher than the dog ever anticipated. Thinking out loud here....Could be dog is working for the potential for a higher level of reward but if we kept increasing, then it becomes predictable and no longer exceeds expectations. Sometimes it's difficult to find a reward greater than the distraction especially prey driven distractions.

The Delta trainer in this area won't deal with dogs that show any aggression (dog or human). She sends them to another (non-Delta) trainer. yep it was a delta trainer i went to...never again. What I would like to know is what this Delta system has achieved as a finished product??? Someone has obviously come up with the system so what's their background of achievement using it???. Have they titled dogs in sport, do they train police or sniffer dogs, guide dogs for the blind or anything worthy of recognition taking dogs to high achievement levels???. Or is it a system they are practicing with to see how it goes

Excellent post, very well explained Angelsun

Depends on the reinforcement history and how well the response has been conditioned. I'm not 'purely positive', but the value of an individual reinforcement v level of distraction becomes a non-issue even at my level of expertise. It certainly does depend upon reinforcement history but in the reliability crunch, there will be some distraction somewhere greater than the reward on offer and the dog will bolt, or disobey especially off leash. It's a proofing principal of E Collar training for example where the dog learns a negative consequence to the action of disobedience. Some people have a different interpretation of maximum distraction, what some believe is high distraction to others that level of distraction is only a medium level. I remember a Labrador trained purely positive not long a go, a brilliant dog in obedience except when the woman who handled the dog's husband was present. If the dog got wind of the OH present it would focus on him and misbehave, break stays etc etc. Several trainers assisted with correcting this problem which improved maginally but not good enough to be acceptable. It wasn't until an E Collar was used on this dog in off leash obedience was the behaviour corrected. Months of positive reinforcement failure was corrected in two sessions of punishment when the dog learned that there was a negative consequence to misbehaviour. Not eveyone views reliability the same either. What some accept as great reliability, other will view as only average and depends on what you are looking to attain from the dog.

The CGC obedience is not as high a level as the BH. It would require greater obedience to pass a BH than the CGC. The crowd test, meeting a stranger, traffic test etc of the BH is on a similar principal to the CGC. I agree that you can't lump all breeds into the same temperament test, as I recall reading about a situation where a GSD Schh1 failed an all breed type temperament test, yet passed multiple times tested in the BH. The BH is a standard GSD companion animal test which for that breed determines passing the BH that the dog has temperament correctness.

'bedazzledx2' date='3rd Apr 2010 - 10:56 PM' post='4436926'] You appear to be lumping all positive training into the one basket and making the assumption that when the distractions become greater than the rewards, positive methods fail. This is just not so! So much depends on the trainer and their understanding of positive training. Good positive trainers teach the dog (without punishment) that the greater the distraction, the greater the potential for reward from their trainer and will focus even more on the trainer. As I said before...positive is not permissive. The trainer quoted here allowed her dog to break a down stay several times....bad trainer!!! Not the dogs fault and punishing the dog for not doing what its obviously not trained/proofed to do would be unfair. Its worth investigating the benefits of positive training with an open mind. BTW we are talking about starting dogs here in a normal pet class, not trying to reform aggressive dogs or dogs with behavioural problems. Positive has a place there too but that is for a different thread. This i cant answer until i see further lessons and how the dogs react etc I still cant understand if a distraction is greater than the reward does it not mean that the reward pales in significance to the distraction? As i previously stated i have been to 3 DIFFERENT schools all under the same association guidlines and i have seen the same at all three.But i will wait and see. Regarding the dogs ability when completed , i believe that a trainers dog would be the guide to what can be achieved? Well after counting seven breaks from a drop not counting the ones before hand before i started counting... it leaves a lot left to be desired.Eventually the dog was tied up.This was in the hour we were there.No i am not exagerating or colouring the truth for the benifit of this thread.Each time, the owner/trainer causally walked back to the dog led it back to its spot and told it to drop then left again ...oh there was a little bit of friendly finger shaking at it then a pat. so whats in the pudding??? When a distraction is greater than the reward, that's when purely positive methods fail in my experience. The dog has to learn that there are negative consequences to an action of disobedience greater than withholding a treat. Seven breaks from a stay doesn't sound very inspiring Seriously some of these "positive" training systems come up with so much garbage it's honestly laughable . What "guru" determined that you shouldn't say "NO" to your dog and what achievement has this "guru" earned better than others who do say "NO"???. Someone comes up with a theory that we shouldn't use check chains whilst the trainers of high performance sport dogs are using E Collars and prongs. Nothing of concrete evidence determines that a dog trained entirely of positive methods creates are more reliable dog than negative reinforcement or a combination of both.

It's a similar test to a Schutzhund BH in principal

Exactly what I asked is the point What are the "objects" of the training methods...........to achieve a dog that sits randomly when it likes, or can only sit on a mat, or providing the foundation to compete in obedience trials???, what are they actually teaching???

This i cant answer until i see further lessons and how the dogs react etc I still cant understand if a distraction is greater than the reward does it not mean that the reward pales in significance to the distraction? As i previously stated i have been to 3 DIFFERENT schools all under the same association guidlines and i have seen the same at all three.But i will wait and see. Regarding the dogs ability when completed , i believe that a trainers dog would be the guide to what can be achieved? Well after counting seven breaks from a drop not counting the ones before hand before i started counting... it leaves a lot left to be desired.Eventually the dog was tied up.This was in the hour we were there.No i am not exagerating or colouring the truth for the benifit of this thread.Each time, the owner/trainer causally walked back to the dog led it back to its spot and told it to drop then left again ...oh there was a little bit of friendly finger shaking at it then a pat. so whats in the pudding??? When a distraction is greater than the reward, that's when purely positive methods fail in my experience. The dog has to learn that there are negative consequences to an action of disobedience greater than withholding a treat. Seven breaks from a stay doesn't sound very inspiring

What is the finished product of the training process that the OP has described???. Do you end up with a dog that responds to voice commands in a reliable fashion without a leash under high distraction???. Does the training centre demonstrate a dog's ability trained in these methods when completed???

The out come of this case may well change that. There is a massive difference between condemning a breed like the APBT that has never been ANKC recognised than a breed that is already established, law suits flying all over the place Criminilising established recognised breeds will never happen...........too much fallout to contend with.

I agree with Hortfurball regarding DA dogs which is not always met by good management and responsible ownership that prevents a DA dog and is more from good luck that a particular dog is not DA. We had for example, a Lab, Flatcoat and 4 Goldens raised a particular way from puppies, none were the slightest bit DA and all friendly and good natured. The first GSD raised exactly the same way was a mongrel of a thing wanting to attack every strange dog he saw We had to handle this dog completely differently to our previous 6 Retrievers to get a handle on his DA disposition. DA was nothing we ever had to consider or deal with in the Retrievers and was only good luck that none were DA. Some people I am sure would have thought we were terrible owners back then with our GSD bouncing and lunging aggressively on the end of the leash. Take out our Golden for a walk, different ball game, wonderful owners with him???. Some dogs have DA tendencies, some don't

Dutchies have now been recognised by the ANKC and so dogs with FCI papers can get them registered with the ANKC. I assume this means that they are eligible for SchH now in this country as they would fall under FCI eligible breeds? Dutchies are not listed on the FCI eligible Schutzhund breeds overseas either to my knowledge???. Obviously they would have great sporting potential but I couldn't find any entered in the results of any overseas Schutzhund tournaments???. BREEDS ELIGIBLE FOR SCHUTZHUND TRAINING German Shepherd Dog, Boxer, Dobermann, Rottweiler, Giant Schnauzer, Airedale Terrier, Bouvier Des Flandres, Hovawart, Belgian Shepherd (Groendael, Malinois, Tervueren, Laekenois), Berger de Beauce, Berger de Brie, Berger Des Pyrenees A Face Rase, Berger Des Pyrenees A Museau Normal, Berger Picard, Lapinkoira, Suomenpystykorva The breeds above are the current FCI listing??? So you can do Schutzhund with a Finnish Spitz and a Finnish Lapphund (which I have never heard of doing any sort of manwork) but not a Dutch Shepherd (which are famous for KNVP)? It appears so???. Some KNPV Malinois are not eligible either I was told once, something to do with their pedigree???.

\Do you agree with the requirement whereby you have to get a 3rd dog then apply for a permit and if rejected re-home one of the dogs???.

I think it's a sad situation when the councils do require a 3rd dog in place before a permit application is accepted, the people have done the right thing then their application is rejected and in the process, have the council on their back to ensure that they have gotten rid of the 3rd dog. You can understand why some may take the punt on the "let sleeping dogs lie" basis. That council system encourages dishonesty

Lets not forget that the purpose of a training device is to teach the dog to learn and behave, not to manage the problem.