This is a placeholder text
Group text
by susie on 27 January 2013 - 00:01
Brynjulf, there really is no secret - just training on a daily basis including tracking, obedience, and bitework - daily access to a good helper and some experience.
It´s a kind of lifestyle - instead of jogging or watching TV people are training dogs after work.
2 months is too fast for a totally green dog, but 3 -4 months is no problem.
It´s a kind of lifestyle - instead of jogging or watching TV people are training dogs after work.
2 months is too fast for a totally green dog, but 3 -4 months is no problem.
by Prager on 27 January 2013 - 08:01
Clickers themselves as a device are silly gimmick. As even Ivan Petrovich Pavlov knew more then hundred years ago, the principle of clicker reward is sound, nothing new there, but what are you going to do when clicker company goes out of business or you lose your clicker? Forget clickers. Just click with tongue or say good boy.
Also I would like to say that there is a world of difference between sport training in unusual distraction free environmant done for points and every day training of a companion pp, family dog or working dog where the dog is going to be around many distractions and temptations. . If you cross demagogically and totally one into the other you will not do well. For decades I am making living fixing dogs trained by sport trainers training house dogs. Every purpose for which the dog is being trained needs different approach. In order to answer the topic question I will say that understanding of that is very rare.
Also we have more devices now then in past. For example e collar which may or may not be good tool but more often then not will make trainer lazy and making short cuts. Instead thinking the trainer pushes button. Not all but many.
Another thing today is that many believe that 100% positive approach is the way to go. However that may lead to overly aggressive or overly protective dogs. I think PC training which is so common these days is just wishful thinking disregarding reality of the world.
Prager Hans
Also I would like to say that there is a world of difference between sport training in unusual distraction free environmant done for points and every day training of a companion pp, family dog or working dog where the dog is going to be around many distractions and temptations. . If you cross demagogically and totally one into the other you will not do well. For decades I am making living fixing dogs trained by sport trainers training house dogs. Every purpose for which the dog is being trained needs different approach. In order to answer the topic question I will say that understanding of that is very rare.
Also we have more devices now then in past. For example e collar which may or may not be good tool but more often then not will make trainer lazy and making short cuts. Instead thinking the trainer pushes button. Not all but many.
Another thing today is that many believe that 100% positive approach is the way to go. However that may lead to overly aggressive or overly protective dogs. I think PC training which is so common these days is just wishful thinking disregarding reality of the world.
Prager Hans
by Kaffirdog on 27 January 2013 - 09:01
While I keep my training as positve as possible, there are times when you have to make it clear that complying with a command is a must and not an option. I am not talented, dedicated or ruthless enough to train a dog to the top, but I am fortunate enough to have such good dogs to train that they have qualified in spite of being handicapped by my limitations, but one thing I do have is an excellent mutual bond with my dogs and I love and understand them as well as any human can really understand a dog, we can usually communicate from the heart.. I do not use an ecollar and I think far too many trainers use it as a substitute for have a real relationship with their dog.
Margaret N-J
Margaret N-J
by Hired Dog on 27 January 2013 - 11:01
I use E collars, have been for a very long time. I do not find them to be a tool for lazy people, to the contrary, I find their use to be for those who are intelligent and know what they are doing. I have clicked since the 70's, with my mouth, "yep" is a word that is always with me, always available.
Training works for ONE reason only...consequences, good or bad, for doing or not doing, thats it. There is nothing new in dog training, the same principals used now have been used for a long time by those who know. The only new thing is the pussyfication of the "all positive", as if there is such a thing, that has taken over most pet dog training.
So long as you make it clear to the dog that there WILL be an advantage to him for every single behavior you want him to perform and so long as when the time comes, you show him that not complying is not an option, training is easy.
Training works for ONE reason only...consequences, good or bad, for doing or not doing, thats it. There is nothing new in dog training, the same principals used now have been used for a long time by those who know. The only new thing is the pussyfication of the "all positive", as if there is such a thing, that has taken over most pet dog training.
So long as you make it clear to the dog that there WILL be an advantage to him for every single behavior you want him to perform and so long as when the time comes, you show him that not complying is not an option, training is easy.
by Sunsilver on 27 January 2013 - 16:01
Thought I'd throw this out as an example of old school vs. new.
I acquired a large male GSD as a 3 year old rescue. He knew almost nothing when ti came to obedience. He lrearned fast, but we had BIG problems with the 'down'. He would resist being pushed or pulled down, and if I used food, he'd just walk or creep over to me and try to scarf it down. I was getting really frustrated!
Then, I talked to a trainer I respected. She said, 'hold the food on the other side of a chair or bench so he HAS to go down to reach it!"
DUH! Never would have thought of that on my own...
Brains wins over brawn!
It worked like a charm, though he's still a lot slower to go into a down than my females! Guys just don't like to put themselves in a submissive position, I guess!
I am not a cookies and clicker fan, but I firmly believe the better the trainer, the less force they need to use. And I love to see a dog working with a wagging tail and happy attitude. That's where the new style training has the advantage over the old.
The biggest mistake I see being made with current training is the pet crowd, throwing pack theory out the window, and treating dogs like they're 'kids with fur'! Heck, even your KID will turn out to be a spoiled brat if you never say 'NO' to it!
As for pack theory, I studied animal behaviour extensively in university, and have always been eager to learn more about animals and animal behaviour. If someone tries to feed you this nonsense remind them of this: EVERY SINGLE MAMMAL THAT LIVES IN A GROUP HAS A PECKING ORDER, OR PACK STRUCTURE. When new animals come into a group, chaos often erupts, until the animal has found its niche. JUst ask any zookeeper, anyone who has ever kept horses out in a pasture or anyone who has studied animals that live in groups in the wild.
Same holds true for a nimber of other vertebrate species, such as chickens.
I acquired a large male GSD as a 3 year old rescue. He knew almost nothing when ti came to obedience. He lrearned fast, but we had BIG problems with the 'down'. He would resist being pushed or pulled down, and if I used food, he'd just walk or creep over to me and try to scarf it down. I was getting really frustrated!
Then, I talked to a trainer I respected. She said, 'hold the food on the other side of a chair or bench so he HAS to go down to reach it!"
DUH! Never would have thought of that on my own...
Brains wins over brawn!It worked like a charm, though he's still a lot slower to go into a down than my females! Guys just don't like to put themselves in a submissive position, I guess!
I am not a cookies and clicker fan, but I firmly believe the better the trainer, the less force they need to use. And I love to see a dog working with a wagging tail and happy attitude. That's where the new style training has the advantage over the old.
The biggest mistake I see being made with current training is the pet crowd, throwing pack theory out the window, and treating dogs like they're 'kids with fur'! Heck, even your KID will turn out to be a spoiled brat if you never say 'NO' to it!
As for pack theory, I studied animal behaviour extensively in university, and have always been eager to learn more about animals and animal behaviour. If someone tries to feed you this nonsense remind them of this: EVERY SINGLE MAMMAL THAT LIVES IN A GROUP HAS A PECKING ORDER, OR PACK STRUCTURE. When new animals come into a group, chaos often erupts, until the animal has found its niche. JUst ask any zookeeper, anyone who has ever kept horses out in a pasture or anyone who has studied animals that live in groups in the wild.
Same holds true for a nimber of other vertebrate species, such as chickens.
by ziegenfarm on 27 January 2013 - 18:01
i wasn't going to comment on this thread, so i will try to keep it brief. one advantage in defense of clickers is the ability to "mark" a behavior without using your voice.
if you have a dog who is apt to break a behavior as soon as you speak to him, which causes you, in effect, to praise a bad behavior rather than praising the correct
behavior. if the dog is apt to break, you can mark the behavior with the clicker at the correct time, then use your voice for praise without causing confusion.
also, i would like to add a few words about the use of compulsion. technically, compulsion is something used in conjunction with a command. an oversimplified
example of this would be pushing a puppy's rump to the floor when you are teaching him the "sit" command. what it amounts to is "showing" what you are training
and if effective, eliminates the possibility for error. good communication. :) a lot of people equate compulsion with abuse when it really should be a physical form
of communication, an example, a directive.
pjp
if you have a dog who is apt to break a behavior as soon as you speak to him, which causes you, in effect, to praise a bad behavior rather than praising the correct
behavior. if the dog is apt to break, you can mark the behavior with the clicker at the correct time, then use your voice for praise without causing confusion.
also, i would like to add a few words about the use of compulsion. technically, compulsion is something used in conjunction with a command. an oversimplified
example of this would be pushing a puppy's rump to the floor when you are teaching him the "sit" command. what it amounts to is "showing" what you are training
and if effective, eliminates the possibility for error. good communication. :) a lot of people equate compulsion with abuse when it really should be a physical form
of communication, an example, a directive.
pjp
by Slamdunc on 27 January 2013 - 18:01
Funny, the people that I know that train and compete and work dogs at an extremely high level use a clicker and E collars. I know a bird dog trainer that competes for a single day $50,000 cash prize, world class SchH trainers that have competed internationally and many "real" high end LE and Military handlers that use clickers for foundation and imprinting. There is a reason to use a
"clicker" and the voice can not replicate the meaning consistently. Training to their level is an art and if clickers and E collars didn't work they wouldn't use them. You would have to see the precision and results, the enhanced learning and speed in training. These trainers I am referring to are not "purely positive" either and they clearly understand the negative reinforcer and markers as well as the positive markers. I would say dog training has definitely improved over the past 20 years or so in leaps and bounds.
"clicker" and the voice can not replicate the meaning consistently. Training to their level is an art and if clickers and E collars didn't work they wouldn't use them. You would have to see the precision and results, the enhanced learning and speed in training. These trainers I am referring to are not "purely positive" either and they clearly understand the negative reinforcer and markers as well as the positive markers. I would say dog training has definitely improved over the past 20 years or so in leaps and bounds.
by VKGSDs on 27 January 2013 - 19:01
Yes there is a difference between clicker training and training using a marker.
by ChrissieT on 27 January 2013 - 22:01
I find there has to be a middle ground. Whether you use a clicker, or a yes, or good, to mark a good behaviour, there has to be a no, or wrong to mark an error. As long as you then show a dog what you want instead of the bad behaviour, and then praise.
I have helped with re- training a dog trained on E collar, and clicker. The dog was confused to the point of panic. Not necessarily on account of the tools used, but as has been said on this thread before, because of the person on the other end of the tools used. Tools are only as good as the persons understanding of how to use them properly. To watch a dog trained by someone using a clicker properly, is a joy. They would probably do just as well without it, as some have a natural affinity with their dogs anyway.
Unfortunately, when others try to do the same, all they do is create confusion, and resort to aggression. And aggression breeds aggression.
Dogs can be trained in a matter of weeks, as long as the training is consistent. Unfortunately today there is an abundance of dog training advice, in books, on the net, on the common out walking. Someone always knows better. The pet training market is probably the biggest minefield, because of the lack of basic knowledge of the owners. They do learn, but at the cost of the dogs. When their dogs lunge at other dogs out of fear, or after they have been attacked, the old remedy would be to correct them for lunging. This creates aggression, and so on, and so on.
Dog training has improved because we now take into account WHY the dog lunges, and try to see things from the dogs point of viewCorrection does not have to be a total negative, it can just be a marker that the dog is wrong, and then reinforce a positive. As long as it is done calmly.
Hopefully it is going in the direction of a partnership, instead of making our dogs submitting.
I have helped with re- training a dog trained on E collar, and clicker. The dog was confused to the point of panic. Not necessarily on account of the tools used, but as has been said on this thread before, because of the person on the other end of the tools used. Tools are only as good as the persons understanding of how to use them properly. To watch a dog trained by someone using a clicker properly, is a joy. They would probably do just as well without it, as some have a natural affinity with their dogs anyway.
Unfortunately, when others try to do the same, all they do is create confusion, and resort to aggression. And aggression breeds aggression.
Dogs can be trained in a matter of weeks, as long as the training is consistent. Unfortunately today there is an abundance of dog training advice, in books, on the net, on the common out walking. Someone always knows better. The pet training market is probably the biggest minefield, because of the lack of basic knowledge of the owners. They do learn, but at the cost of the dogs. When their dogs lunge at other dogs out of fear, or after they have been attacked, the old remedy would be to correct them for lunging. This creates aggression, and so on, and so on.
Dog training has improved because we now take into account WHY the dog lunges, and try to see things from the dogs point of viewCorrection does not have to be a total negative, it can just be a marker that the dog is wrong, and then reinforce a positive. As long as it is done calmly.
Hopefully it is going in the direction of a partnership, instead of making our dogs submitting.
by Gustav on 28 January 2013 - 03:01
@Workingdogz....your post is RIGHT on the money....IMO!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
