Um, Anyone Read The Series Of Articles In Dogs Vic Magazine?

[ness]

Get a toller .

[Staranais]

Try doing obedience with a dog below knee height and see how hard it is to get good scores.

What, you mean a dog like my 38cm SBT? Unfortuantely it's not just his small size holding us back in the ring. Though I agree that medium sized dogs do seem to be easier to compete with than the smaller or very big breeds.

[poodlefan]

Get a toller .

You mean a solid red BC that happens to be in Group 3: Same build as a BC Ness... so it "looks" right.

What, you mean a dog like my 38cm SBT?

Luxury.. try a 29 cm Toy Poodle when you're 175 cm high.

Edited October 11, 2007 by poodlefan

[Staranais]

Luxury.. try a 290 cm Toy Poodle when you're 175 cm high.

Ah, but I bet your poodle is much more agile (and probably way, way, smarter) than my little black brick!

[poodlefan]

Luxury.. try a 290 cm Toy Poodle when you're 175 cm high.

Ah, but I bet your poodle is much more agile (and probably way, way, smarter) than my little black brick!

Probably.. and she ain't 290cm.. (I fixed that).. that would be a MONSTER poodle!!

We have an OC Staffy at our club.. great little worker

Edited October 11, 2007 by poodlefan

[kelpiechick]

I've noticed that in the UK it is very BC dominated - particularly for obedience/agility.

I also wonder if this may be because people think "i'm going to get a BC so I can do obedience or agility" rather than simply obtaining a dog and entering with that dog????

Just a thought.

Leopuppy, I think that is exactly what many people think - and not just in the UK.

Apologies for going slightly OT now but it drives me crazy when those of us who actually have working kelpies or BC's as our 'heart breed' have others think/say 'she only got that type of dog to compete in agility, etc.'

Working kelpies come with their own set of training 'challenges' believe me! as I am sure do BC's, especially those high drive dogs who do well in agility.

[poodlefan]

Kelpiechick:

Apologies for going slightly OT now but it drives me crazy when those of us who actually have working kelpies or BC's as our 'heart breed' have others think/say 'she only got that type of dog to compete in agility, etc.'

I know of others who share your frustration. However I also know people who've done precisely what people are saying.. and it hasn't been a happy ending for dog or handler.

[Rom]

I think its in the UK, but I remember reading about an agility organisation that has a competition class called ABC. Stands for Anything But a Collie.

[Arya]

There are advantages, an disadvantages to both types of training, and it pains me to here all the purely positive trainers constantly knocking aversive methods and labeling them as history. As has already been pointed out, reward training is not new, or necessarily better.

Most forms of dog training are going to do society good, and I for one would not like to see this forum turn into the Yahoo obedience website with a big bold headline "Positive only trainers"

Hi Dogdude, hope to see you at FOO I most definitely am not a purely positive trainer. But I think in training, you have to motivate the dog as much as possible. And if you look at the article, one of the final lines says 'always reward with sincere praise, not food treats'. Really. Does this person think that 'sincere praise' will be enough for most dogs? Hardly. You'd have to be pretty charismatic to do that without introducing some sort of fairly good aversive in training to make the praise worth it imho. It's not 'purely positive' to use motivational training. It's just common sense. We all need motivators, even if it's a bit of a win in the ring now and again LOL.

[Arya]

Never ceases to amaze me how the obedience rules preclude the use of "training aids" in the ring but allow check chains.. wait until you've seen a handler rattle the chain to get the dog's attention.

Some dogs I reckon you could train using any method and some more prominant handlers really haven't hit a "challenging" dog (or if they have they've rehomed it). The true test of a training method is how it works with "hard to train" dogs IMHO and no one method will solve those kinds of challenges.

Poodlefan, I use a check chain BUT in the ring it's useless for me, you know what I would like to see? Dogs in Open with no collar on at all. It has to be removed and handed to the steward with the lead. I totally agree with your second para. TOTALLY. And your final sentence too. I know of someone who had great success with their dogs in the ring over the years. Hard dogs, great temperaments for Obedience, whatever. Then struck a dog with real nerve issues. The proof of this trainer's ability was to take this hard to train dog with issues and make an Ob and Tracking champion. An excellent achievement, hard won with challenges to find the right training methods for this dog, so different and difficult.

Training method depends totally on the dog imho. Some hard-A#$%ed dogs need cxns, sorry that's what I think. But only in a smart way and not de-motivational. Most dogs just don't. And for some it's very destructive. The issue I had was with the articles in Vic Dog.

[Kelpie-i]

TH: Just another slant on the on the discussion........

All techniques work and why would you change when you have had 50 years of SUCCESS with a particular method. Most likely in another 50 years time there will be people(trainers) frowning on what they consider "old school" methods - our motivational methods in the use of food or toys that we use today. ?? .

Correct Tapferhund. MT has had 50 years of success with his methods, but that doesn't mean Jo and Jane Public will. I see each week people coming to school who have tried to apply some of the more "old school" type methods with their dogs only to end up either being growled at by their dogs or with no results at all.

Techniques and methods evolve continuously, and it is up to all good trainers to ensure that they are abreast of anything new that comes along so that we instruct on correct leadership balance and get things happening for people and their dogs without it becoming a dangerous exercise. Isn't this why we attend conferences like APDT or read books etc.

WE ,as dog people , understand our dogs and we know how to get the best out of our dogs through motivational training ...and also remember our dogs know their place within our households...........but the greater majority of 'jo and jane public' are absolutely hopeless with dogs, they are not dog savvy ,their dogs usually 'rule' the household and through playing the wrong type of games with the wrong type of temperamented dog ...end up creating all sorts of problems for themselves.

So does this mean that you would be comfortable instructing Jo and Jane Public to alpha roll and/or apply a harsh physical correction to their "dominant" 50kg Rottie who won't drop? Wouldn't looking into a good leadership program and various other "life reward" technqiues work better (and be safer) in this instance for these non-dog savvy people?

MT's articles IMO are directed towards this type of person......Jo and Jane Public...who have absolutely NO idea ,nor do they want to, on motivational games for drive

Jo and Jane Public do not subscribe to these sorts of magazines and if so, most would not be ABLE to correctly and safely apply some of the techniques outlined.

MT lost my vote when I heard him on talk back radio once saying that food reward methods are the reason why we see so many dog attacks occur! A very "bold" statement to make I reckon.

Before I get attacked for being "purely positive", I am a "balanced" trainer, who will use whatever method/tool that works. From food to prong collars and everything else in between. I see the merits in all techniques but will not shove one or another down people's throats. It all depends on the dog and handler's capabilities. I think most trainers on this forum are the same.

PF: Some dogs I reckon you could train using any method and some more prominant handlers really haven't hit a "challenging" dog (or if they have they've rehomed it). The true test of a training method is how it works with "hard to train" dogs IMHO and no one method will solve those kinds of challenges.

Couldn't agree more PF. A "hard to train" dog teaches a trainer many things....mainly which techniques do not work!

[Arya]

Hey, what about GSDs? Why BCs more popular than GSDs in UK does anyone know? I LOVE wrap style of heeling. I reckon it's just personal preference. Crowding is not right, however they heel. It's harder to stop crowding with wrap but it can be done I love my GSDs but don't get me wrong, I reckon just about any dog can do really really well in Obedience. A friend has lovely heeler cross kelpie in Open at moment. He is going really well. Just picked up medal at GSD open show last weekend. And another friend fantastic MaltxShihtzus. There was a very good little heeling pug around recently too and now even a nice Shar-pei!

[Arya]

MT lost my vote when I heard him on talk back radio once saying that food reward methods are the reason why we see so many dog attacks occur! A very "bold" statement to make I reckon.

My God did he say that? OMG, words fail me

[Tapferhund]

Is the following considered positive training?

"As the puppy comes to your feet to take the MEAT held between your thumb and finger of your right hand,raise your hand up between your knees so that he will lift his head a little to nibble at the meat. At this point quietly but quickly command him to 'sit' and carefully push his rear end down and towards you with your left hand. You will have no trouble with this:he will be relaxed because he is interested in eating the MEAT. He needs to have this training about half a dozen times at one of his feeding times each day and, when the training is over he can eat the rest of his food out of his bowl."

and

"After carrying out two or three simple recalls, take up two pieces of MEAT in your right hand. Recall him again and when he sits in front of you,reward him with one piece of the meat. Then quickly say 'heel' and entice him to follow the second piece of MEAT"...etc etc

The above couple of quotes are from an old very good training book I have ...called..

DOG TRAINING made easy.....it's complete with lots of photo's ,many using food and just guess who it was written by....

Michael Tucker

The book is nearly thirty years old

[Rom]

And if you look at the article, one of the final lines says 'always reward with sincere praise, not food treats'. Really. Does this person think that 'sincere praise' will be enough for most dogs? Hardly. You'd have to be pretty charismatic to do that without introducing some sort of fairly good aversive in training to make the praise worth it imho. It's not 'purely positive' to use motivational training. It's just common sense. We all need motivators, even if it's a bit of a win in the ring now and again LOL.

Oooh yes. Point in case: was listening in to someone who used to trial in obedience and has changed breeds and decided to get into obedience again. Has a very timid toy breed that she can't get to walk on lead. When asked what motivator she was using she said, "Just my voice". When asked what she had paired that with that means something to the dog to engage it in the learning process, she had no answer. She is adamant that she is not going to use food or toys to help motivate the dog however with some convincing did agree to patting the dog.

One of the things that I find a worry is that often in the debate btn PP and Aversive style training some seem to stick so adamantly to their opinion/training method that they fail to learn from the other side of the fence. You end up with PP trainers who do not understand a fair application of an aversive, and aversive trainers who do not understand how to use motivators to their best advantage. This doesn't mean that either camp doesn't sometimes use the others methods, just that their closed mindedness prevents them from learning about them and using them effectively as in the example above.

[Kelpie-i]

Tapferhund, it is obvious that you are mentored by MT so all the power to you.

I have no intentions on turning this into a slagging match however your last post intrigues me.

Please ask MT why he poo poo's the use of treat rewards yet writes a book on the application?

[Tapferhund]

"MT lost my vote when I heard him on talk back radio once saying that food reward methods are the reason why we see so many dog attacks occur! A very "bold" statement to make I reckon."

Kelpie-i

In part that statement of his is correct. Just think about it .....years ago , when there was more of a "hands on" approach to dog training which included corrections for bad behaviour or non compliance..there were much fewer aggressive dogs in homes or on the streets. Today ,with the softly softly approach to dog training , where food reward is used for good behaviour and no consequencies for bad behaviour.......dogs no longer have a clear direction .......to many of these dogs, their owners bribing them with food all the time ,even for bad behaviour, is as good as telling the dog it is leader and those who are bribing it are it's subordinates.

I will give you an example......I know a woman with a little Terrier cross who completely rules her, it savages her even in the face when sitting in her lap(where he demands to be most of the time)........she sucks and crawls with food rewards to this dog ALL the time ...and he clearly sees her as a subordinate who feeds the pack leader.....HIM.

We all know she has got the training/food reward completely wrong, but she is a typical example of what I am talking about in past posts

So.......in part ....that statement of MT is in many ways correct.

Edited October 11, 2007 by Tapferhund

[kelpiechick]

I will give you an example......I know a woman with a little Terrier cross who completely rules her, it savages her even in the face when sitting in her lap(where he demands to be most of the time)........she sucks and crawls with food rewards to this dog ALL the time ...and he clearly sees her as a subordinate who feeds the pack leader.....HIM.

Yes, sadly there are lots of people out there with no idea how to treat dogs, with disastrous results.

BUT..... this example would surely be the exception rather than the rule.

I hope you're not assuming this is how all trainers using food rewards treat their dogs?

Positive is NOT permissive !

[Tapferhund]

Kepie I

There is no need to get your knickers in a knot over this and MT is not a mentor at all, actually the last time I saw him was nearly thirty years ago while he was training a German Shepherd Guide dog.

Personally I like some of the things he says in his articles....I think he is correct in some of his opinions,especially in the first two or three he did for the VCA Gazette......but at the same time ,there are a few things I don't agree with too.........but ,unlike you, it seems I am OPEN to his ideas on training.

Perhaps when you have trained as many dogs for Guides ,Armed Forces and Police as MT has .....you will be able to question his methods with more authority.

[Kelpie-i]

TH, I completely agree with your example and I too see these problems on a regular occurrence. However, we cannot blame food rewards entirely for this or even sound as though we are. The discussion on the radio at the time was about dog attacks in general and I felt it was a very blanketed statement for MT to make. If you ask me, the majority of these dogs attacked due to LACK of training, rather than food reward training.