Given the outcry about my post on dogs learning by other means than luring with food and it dominating the thread by Black Fairy I thought I would answer some of your criticisms here.

How many users of this forum have advised others with pups to take their pup out to the garden on numerous occasions, regularly throughout the day in order to house train them?  Loads of you no doubt.

Does the pup know  why it's being taken out?  No, it hasn't a clue. How long do you wait for the pup to offer the behaviour you want so that you can praise it for 'performing' outside?  Do any of you think the pup is stressed while you wait for it to offer the 'correct' behaviour?  How many of you will then label the action?  How long does it take before the freely offered, now labelled behaviour becomes the norm?

Has anyone on here accused the advisors of causing discomfort to their pups in this 'learning' process?

How many of us walk our pups on lead around the garden while waiting for it to find its 'spot'?  Young pups almost always walk with us, they are minded to look for a mother figure at this age and rarely pull forward, they stay by our side.  How many of us have taken advantage of this freely offered behaviour and labelled it 'heel' or 'close' and praised the pup for walking with us.  I think even the good book Perfect Puppy, which everyone seems to recommend, highlights this useful opportunity of teaching/learning 'heel'.

Has anyone on here accused the advisors of causing harm to the pup through 'frustration' in the process?

A pup has a limited repertoire of natural behaviours and offers them quite freely.  Sit being the most common.  How many times have we carried in its food bowl (at least 4 times every day at first) and the pup following us and looking up at the dish  has collapsed into a sit - as the head goes up the rear goes down automatically.  If we're smart we say 'sit' on every occasion to make use of the opportunites our pup offers.

Has anyone on here criticised anyone who suggests you can train a pup to 'sit' by this method.

Of course, there's the recall.  We only have to say our pups name and once it knows it it comes headlong towards us.  If we are wise we praise it as it comes forward and say 'come' to make an association for future recalls.

Strangely enough, most of the behaviours we want our dogs to do are all here, no food lure in sight, no harsh 'positioning' physically as someone accused me of, no frustration.

What about later on when walking to heel goes to pot, usually at adolesence.  I've lost count of how many times the advice is given here to 'make like a tree'  meaning,  stand still and wait until your dog turns round and comes back to your side and then and only then walk forward.  I call that 'working it out for itself'.  But I've been slated on the Black Fairy thread for suggesting that a dog may learn in this way.

If a pup learns at age 7-8 weeks to sit automatically for its food bowl it is a very easy progression for that same dog, usually at adolesence, to learn to curb its excitment at going for a walk long enough to offer a sit.  The first time it may take a minute or two.  The second time even less, the third time it will be an instant sit as soon as you pick up the lead. Where is that process harmful to the dog?

I am still amazed that so many of you went off in a frenzy of histrionic demented criticism without even thinking through what my suggestions actually meant. 

Or was it just that I put forward an idea that wasn't in keeping with yours of luring with food and rewarding with food.

Like I said on the other thread, dog training is full of hyprocracy and double standards, a fact bourne out here today.

This is called a place for Information Exchange.  I think some of you have forgotton that.

> Like I said on the other thread, dog training is full of hyprocracy and double standards, a fact bourne out here today.
>

Charming.

As I said whatever floats their boat. I have too many dogs and too many clients dogs to worry about the purity of methods of training.
If i want a quick result I food lure - if I take a pack out for free running I take a squeaky toy - if I'm working with a handler who is struggling with communication with their dog, I encourage using 'whatever it takes' to elicit and reinforce by positive means - if I have people who are interested in the psyche of the dog and it's learning process I will encourage them to discover how a dog 'figures out'.
In most formal training scenarios, time restraints encourage trainers to instigate food luring because they often dont have the opportunity in all cases -to work with entirely ' spontaniously offered behaviour' but any good class would educate their handlers how to see how the dog is learning and how to tap into this.

One size does not fit all and for people who have had great success training their dogs using food - good luck to them and lucky dog. I dont suppose they enjoy reading that they are in fact a failure.

"My way or the highway" I suppose. (I must admit I missed the 'frenzy of histrionic demented criticism'; I read a reasoned discussion - an exchange of information.)

I read 'Masterclass'.

You are still missing the point.  The point is that the hypocracy lies in the what is widely considered kind/effective methods.   When you really break down what is actually happening to the dog the 'kind' methods advocated are actually incredibly cruel to the dog.  They may not include any kind of physical contact but they are even more damaging to the dog but no-one sees that, the myths and mantra are adopted without enough thought and implemented by innocent people who are totally unware of what they are doing to their dog.  If people were more open minded and thought about what is really happening instead of being carried along on the current tides of popular ideas things for the dog would improve.

The double standards are that 'making like a tree' which has been advocated on here for yonks is  'working it out for itself', an option I was criticised for yesterday. 

Whether you want to see it or not there were a lot of closed minds on yesterday, a lot of jumping to conclusions, a lot of making inferences that weren't there and a general resistance to even consider that there may be something valid in what I said. 

It doesn't encourage people to contribute to what is a public, open  forum.  I think that's sad.

>How many times have we carried in its food bowl (at least 4 times every day at first) and the pup following us and looking up at the dish  has collapsed into a sit - as the head goes up the rear goes down automatically.  If we're smart we say 'sit' on every occasion to make use of the opportunites our pup offers.

Luring with food, then? ;-)

>a general resistance to even consider that there may be something valid in what I said.

That also works both ways.

Did you decide how long it would take you to work out what action was expected from you in an unfamiliar room, and what level of frustration and annoyance you would reach before you finally got it right?

The luring with food in this instance is not a positive action it is incidental.  But if you hold anything above a pups head it will invariably sit because its conformation causes it to do so.

If this had been a discussion, the polite way is to ask why I said what I had at the first instance.  The polite way would be to ask what my reasons were or the evidence to support it.  None of that happened - I was met with (false) accusations, incorret conclusion, and misquoted .

Throughout it all I maintained that I never had a problem with reward based training or positive reinforcement but at every turn I was put in a position where I had to defend myself.  That is not the way of a reasoned debate a Masterclass or anything else you now want to call the distasteful events of yesterday.

Neither am I going to waste any more valuable time on this subject.  Champdogs is not a 'closed shop' nor should it be and if information is to be exchanged then some positive reinforcement instead of negative reactions would go a long way.

absolutely agree with the "make like a tree" training, however i would probably go one step further and reward the correct action with food as well. I can't quite see what your problem is. Dog training is not a one size fits all and alot depends on waht the DOG finds rewarding and what you are trying to train. Some things are better done with food and some not. All we were suggesting is that food is a good motivator for most dogs. I really can't understand your suggestion that it is cruel! I think you are over reacting a little bit.
By the way i did ask you how you would do it but you didn't want to answer me as you said you couldn't comment on another dogs training.

Quote
[i]One size does not fit all and for people who have had great success training their dogs using food - good luck to them and lucky dog. I dont suppose they enjoy reading that they are in fact a failure. unquote

There you go again!  Nowhere did I say anyone was a failure.  I said there are more ways than using food to both elicit and rewards behaviour.  This is what is so wrong here you are so defensive that you do not read and think about what is being said, but then jump to incorrect conclusions/assumptions and make false accusations by return.

Nowhere have I levelled a personal criticism at anyone.  The criticism is with one method being so widely used that other, just as kind, just as effective are being overlooked.  I also gave reasons why food use can be detrimental.  Its exchanging and sharing information.

The other methods of training I have mentioned that concern me are using 'extinction' to eliminate behaviours and 'watch me'.  Both have some quite serious implications in use.  So, before other false accusations are made I will say now, though it was clear in my posts, it is the method that is being questioned and the fact that 'trainers' introduce these tools for innocent people to use without knowing the downside.  If some on here now think twice about which tools they use and in what circumstances isn't that a good thing?   It's exchanging/sharing information.

It almost seems that there is some sort of point scoring undercurrent going on here.  Why?  Aren't we here for the good of our dogs?   I am.

> Throughout it all I maintained that I never had a problem with reward based training or positive reinforcement

With comments like this? .....
"but nothing makes me feel more sick than todays methods of food with and for everything"
"Using food for every aspect of training is the most lazy way of getting quick results"
"I think our dogs deserve better"
"Are these dogs really learning or are they responding to cues forged with an association with food"

Food is a reward, I think this is why I am getting so confused by the whole debate, on one hand you say reward based training is fine, but seem to have an aversion to the use of food

> The best motivation for an individual dog will depend on that dog and can vary under diffeent cicumstances, but as I have said - the reason why so many people reccomend using food as a reward is becasue it is thought of as a positive thing by most dogs.

The above statement from me has been said by all of us advocating food rewards. We are all open to ALL types of rewards as JG said "whatever floats thier boat", it seems to be you that are closed off and refuse to accept that food should be used

>The polite way would be to ask what my reasons were or the evidence to support it. 

I asked you this:

> It would be constructive for the OP and perhaps help the rest of us see where you are coming from if you can ellaborate on you "other way to train dogs" . Keep in mind the reason why food is promoted by many and as such, in this debate "food" is just a way of saying reward (which we all know can be anything the dog finds rewarding).

& I also asked you this:

> Those of us that are promoting food rewards/lures also promote any reward-based training. If we want to teach a dog to sit for example, we will wait for a natural sit & immediately reward, or, lure the sit & immidiately reward (type of reward depedning on dogs preference, while recognising that food will be considered a positive outcome by most dogs) - how would your "other way of training" differ to this?

you gave no reply to the actual questions. You did howver compare the dogs of yesteryear, that were not trained with food rewards, to todays food-lured dogs =

> It may not have much and perhaps could have had more but those dogs were a lot less complex and a lot happier than the over-cossetted, spoilt, over-fed, neurotic dogs that are so common today.

:(

> But if you hold anything above a pups head it will invariably sit because its conformation causes it to do so.
>

Not invariably at all...  11 out of my 16 dogs will not sit, they move back away from me to a more comfortable position for their neck and shoulders. and have done since able to stand... They sit, because they are taught to sit

>When you really break down what is actually happening to the dog the 'kind' methods advocated are actually incredibly cruel to the dog

A very sweeping  statement! How can you state this when you have neither seen nor watched the dogs in detail to come to that decision. every dog has to be judged on individual merit to be able to train, even if the dogs are behaving similarly, each dog may need differing treatment/training to obtain similar results..

>I was put in a position where I had to defend myself.

You have your views, others have theirs, no-one needed to defend anything... An open mind encourages debate, a closed mind goes into defence mode

Quote

All we were suggesting is that food is a good motivator for most dogs. I really can't understand your suggestion that it is cruel!

Did I say food rewarding is cruel??  I don't think I have.  I said some methods that we think are kind are actually not kind and even unkind to the dog and at that time was talking about 'ignoring' unwanted behaviours as a way to extinguish them.  Is this yet another misquote?  and you think I am over-reacting!

I'm glad you agree with 'making like a tree' and waiting for the dog to figure out it has to come back by your side before you walk on but it is in fact an example of 'working it out for itself'  but when I suggested this as a method of training/teaching a dog All heck broke loose!  That's another double standard!

If you go back to your post where you asked me how to do it, your post definitely referred to dealing with an excitable dog and Mastiff lover had just been writing about hers.  I did answer you and said I would use systematic desensitisation tweaked a bit as this is usually used for fear/phobias.  You did actually reply to me, have you forgotton, and asked did I think the dog was too close to others.  I again replied and said yes, I agreed, that's why I chose to use SD and not counter conditioning which you put forward as an option.  I also said I would not use Classical Conditioning in the example of an overexcited dog lunging on lead at other dogs/people.

How have I not replied to your question then lucyand meg.

When you really break down what is actually happening to the dog the 'kind' methods advocated are actually incredibly cruel to the dog.
Sorry i read the above to suggest that positive methods using food to reward was cruel, my apologies if that is not what you meant. I don't think its fair to say that that some methods that do not involve punishment are unkind to the dog because otherwise you get into the realms of saying that we shouldn't even keep dogs as pets at all!
I have absolutely no problem in allowing the dog to work things out for them selves - that to me is the whole point of clicker training. I free shape and reward with food, and sometimes i lure the action a few times and then expect the dog to work out what i want them to do to earn the reward without luring. Our issue is with the fact that you say you do not agree with using food. We are sayingthat in some circumstances food is a great motivator for training, be in luring or shaping. I taught my dog to sneeze on command using food as a reinforcer. I couldn't lure that be she has it on stimulus control now because i clicked and rewarded when she happened to sneeze. She figured that out for herself, but there was food involved.
Yes you have replied to my question and yet you said above that no one had even asked about what you would do. That is the point i was making. We did ask.

If this had been a discussion, the polite way is to ask why I said what I had at the first instance.  The polite way would be to ask what my reasons were or the evidence to support it.  None of that happened - I was met with (false) accusations, incorret conclusion, and misquoted .

Well here you are Suze......

One of my dogs decided to roll in fox poop this morning and he was called away, he disobeyed me on my first call so I chucked his lead at him and then called him...... like a bolt of stinky lightening he was.

So....... as I said what ever floats their boat :-)

Lucy and meg

You asked me what i  would do in a certain situation - that of an excited dog whose behaviour became difficult to control.  I answered you.

You now quote this from my post:

If this had been a discussion, the polite way is to ask why I said what I had at the first instance.  The polite way would be to ask what my reasons were or the evidence to support it.  None of that happened - I was met with (false) accusations, incorret conclusion, and misquoted

And now say you did ask questions.  Yes, You did but, not those I am referring to above!  If anyone of you had taken the time to ask those questions instead of jumping up and down in a hissy fit because it challenged the current trend of food with everything we then would have had a Masterclass!

If you go back and look - the quote about 'incredibly cruel' was said in the context of extinction bursts scenarios.  Never in connection to or in relation with postitive reinforcement or rewards based training.  It is extremely damaging to mix them up as other people reading only part of these threads will believe the inferences made against me by such an error.  

> You asked me what i  would do in a certain situation - that of an excited dog whose behaviour became difficult to control.  I answered you.

You did answer how you would treat a dog that was excited by other dogs - via desensitisation, but not as to how you would gets it attention if it was allready excited by another dog (as in day-today life, it's not always possible to avoid the loose dog that bolts at you from out of the blue)., just said that my method was wrong/not adressing the issue.

>.......it challenged the current trend of food with everything

But the way I said I got my dogs attention whilst he was excited by another dog, was an invitation to a game - not with food. So as already said, those of us advocating food rewards are not stuck in a 'trend' of 'food with everything'.........

>Whether you want to see it or not there were a lot of closed minds on yesterday, a lot of jumping to conclusions, a lot of making inferences that weren't there and a general resistance to even consider that there may be something valid in what I said. 

suzieque, I don't know the YOU to whom you are referring in the above statement but as a casual reader of the thread I certainly didn't perceive it that way. 

I love CD but even I get so bored of the long threads that I lose the will to live, although I did try and attempt to read back through it.  I must say though that's it's incredibly difflcult to follow and hard to see just who is replying to whom.  I can see how some of it could be misconstrued when read in the wrong order.  However, there are lots of instances, my own post included, where contributors all agreed that food is not the only answer.  The differences appear to be surrounding the emphasis or preference that owners have for the other methods - although as someone else agreed it's the dogs preference that counts.

Surely what matters in this instance is the outcome - a well trained dog.  As long as the overall methods used are positive then why does it matter if the default training method may have been food?  It's a good starting position for many new owners and enthusiastic pups, and does little harm whilst the owner and dog are learning together what works best for them.  In this new relationship it soon becomes apparent that some methods work better with some dogs than others, and different circumstances require new methods.  Some owners may never progress beyond basic instructions followed by some praise and a bit of food for a treat and that's OK if it gives both a satisfactory outcome.

Dogs with bigger training needs, or owners who wish to develop and progress, will go on to discover the whole range of training options.  I got good advice about how to train a remote 'stop' and how to instruct my dog to change direction when he is on the other side of a field.  Both situations where food does not work.  In fact there are many instances on CD when an owners has said that "food isn't working, what can I try next?".  The same posters who responded to you are the ones offering advice and experience of what other options are available.  I genuinely think you may perceive closed minds where there are none.

As a dog owner I'm very happy for there to be no absolute right or wrong method.  I've inadvertantly taught the wrong things sometimes, user error, and luckily my dog is a quick learner so very forgiving of my ineptitude.  What works for one of my dogs doesn't always work for the other, so I've had to experiment. 

To help me learn I want to hear about every point of view, and if I have difficulties it's nice to know that there are others with alternative experiences to offer.  I don't particularly want to be harangued for my views, not do I wish to read that sort of debate,  but to listen to people acknowledging their differences and presenting opposing views is a great opportunity for learning.  As a general observation, it's possible to influence more people by positively extolling the virtues of your methods, rather than belittling those who disagree. ie Don't tell me what is wrong with my views: tell me what is right with yours :)

If you read my next reply to lucy and meg on this subject you will see that in response to her suggestion that the excitable dog (yours) was too close to others if it got soooo exicted, I replied.

"Totally agree. That's why i would use systematic desensitisation (rather than counter conditioning or classical conditioning).  In using this method (SD) you need to know the critical distance at which the dog reacts or doesn't react and exposure (to the stimulus) starts at the point between the two"

If you understand what SD is (I believe lucyand meg does as she has qualifications and it was her question so I did not feel the need to elaborate further there) you wouldn't ask the question you just have.  The situation of not being able to get your dogs attention due to arousal does not arise - you always work within the zone in which your dog remains calm, and gradually over a period of time reduce the distance between the two providing calmness is maintained.

You can never legislate against loose dogs and there is no way around this but work through the best you can.  Being more specific without seing your dogs reaction would be foolish.  Perhaps lucy and meg could help with her qualifications/experience with her fearful dog.

In reply to your last paragraph if anyone asked I would have.  I answered a valid question from Black Fairy about food with everything etc .  and I then spent hours fielding all sorts of assumptions, misguided conlusions, inferences I'd never made that I was swamped with it.  But no one asked my why I thought the way I did - all the replies were defensive or, misconstrued what I'd actually said!!!

I had had enough yesterday which is why I finally wrote just what methods I would use on this new thread this morning. 

And I'm sure that for all the singing and dancing done yesterday everyone can see the methods I explained are equally as valid, effective and kind.  And as another bonus, vets waiting rooms won't be further filled with overweight dogs (on the increase) and obesity clinics (on the increase) nor bookshelves carry titles such as 'Fat Dog Thin'.

Dogs' health is being comprimised by the excessive use of food.  However hard you try it is difficult ot assess and proportion the amount of food used in treats from the normal daily ration. With such things as cheese/hot dogs/liver cake  being a main source of 'training treat' it is a hard to maintain a balanced diet.

Sadly, all the far dogs we see at the vets where i work aren't down to too many training treats, its just too much free food! Most have to have a biscuit just because its bed time or have to have their milk in the morning and have to have a bonio mid morning etc. Very little of it is actually earnt. I would actually prefer owners to get their dogs to work for their food as they would in the wild, then you wouldn't have so may overweight dogs that just get fed too much and don't get much exercise. Mine all get food treats when i'm training and none of them are fat because i balance it out with exercise and reduce their normal food. If i'm training in a low distraction environment i just use a proportion of their dry food.  I know some dogs that only get fed when training. Her old dog wouldn't eat food in her bowl, she would only eat food given during training so as a consequence she has always just fed her dogs their daily allowance when training.  No fat dogs there either. Unfortuantely you will see fat dogs regardless of whether they use treats for training. At least when using treats to get the dog to do something they are using up the extra calories by moving!

Any reply to my question, suzieque?

Sorry, mastiff lover.

I know I answered this already and said I actually can't make any other suggestions without seeing your dog, how he reacts etc.  maybe I should also have said that in circumstances like these where you can't control loose dogs, distraction is the best way to go.  Distraction doesn't solve the problem but it gets you out of a hole.

I think I'm suffering from exhaustion now!

Your one of what happens/how long would I wait if put in an empty room do you mean?

Well we were not talking about people in these circumstances JG we were talking about dogs so I rather gave your question the attention it required -                     .

However, If you read my first post today you will see the equivalent in dog terms.  The example being the puppy taken out to toilet.  The pup has no frustration, no anxiety, no pre-conceived ideas it just takes it time till it finds the right spot to eliminate.

Any frustration comes from us.

The only person I know who would ever put a DOG in a room by itself with no idea of what was expected of it is John Rogerson.  I believe he left his collie in a room to see what it's problem solving capabilities were.  If I remember correctly it learned, by trial and error, to open the door and let itself out.  Smart dog.

>Your one of what happens/how long would I wait if put in an empty room do you mean?

No, that wasn't the question. It was "You are ushered into a room and think you are expected to perform a particular action for some reason. Without being given any explanation of what is required, how long will it take you to work it out, and how much enjoyment will you get from the process until then?"

Your example of the puppy being taken out to toilet is very different, because the puppy doesn't realise he's being taken out there for a particular purpose. He's just being taken out there, and he'll enjoy mooching around, and sniffing at sniffs, and pouncing on blowing leaves. As you say, no frustration because not only is he not trying to work out what he's expected to do, he doesn't even realise that he is expected to do something in the first place! :-)

> in circumstances like these where you can't control loose dogs, distraction is the best way to go.  Distraction doesn't solve the problem but it gets you out of a hole.
>

Agreed :)
Which is exactly how I used the game invitation to get his focus on me when Buster has been OTT with excitement when a loose dog has approached us. For the rest of the time, with other dogs under thier owners control (on-lead, or not allowed to run at us without an invitaion) I could always keep Buster at a distance that he didn't get silly & gradually decrease this distance as other dogs became less exciting :)

Then it would depend on how much feedback you got from the person wanting the behaviour.  How good they are at 'warm' and 'cold' cues to shape the desired behaviour.  But then of course I'm sure you already know that and it was a rhetorical question to start with.

It just shows though how ignoring things you don't want create frustration in the animal who is used to getting a certain pay off for a behaviour but who is then denied it.  You've been incredibly persistent over getting your question answered haven't you?  Just imagine how frustrating it is for dogs working to extinction burst and you've only been at it a few hours!

>But then of course I'm sure you already know that and it was a rhetorical question to start with.

No, it's actually a well-known example of the 'training game'. :-)

>You've been incredibly persistent over getting your question answered haven't you?

I have. But then a response or not didn't affect what I wanted to do, unlike a dog who would have to try offering all sorts of behaviours until he chanced on the one that the owner had ordained meant he got taken out for a walk. If it had been something that mattered (as I got more and more desperate for a pee, like you in the room trying to work out what you had to do to be allowed out of it!) then yes, the enxiety levels and frustration would be sky-high!

No, it's actually a well-known example of the 'training game'

Yes I know usually known by fruits and veggies in some quarters.

>Yes I know usually known by fruits and veggies in some quarters.

You'll need to explain that, I'm afraid.

I think a lot of us on here,me included,just don't understand your aversion to using food when its been shown to produce such good results for the majority of dogs.
Masifflover described the method she used with her exuberant,over-friendly dog and as she says the end result is that he sits quietly and looks at her for a treat when people or dogs pass.Surely that must be the ideal? Why would your method work better?
Lucyandmeg described very successfully using the "look at that" method with a nervous dog-again excellent results and it couldn't be done without the use of food.
Surely the most important aspect of training is that the dog enjoys it and that it is relationship enhancing.The truly great trainers-people like Silvia Trkman who has the most enviable relationship with her dogs rewards constantly and generously with food and no her dogs aren't spoilt,over fed or neurotic.And there are many,many others.

Fun thread lol. Nice to see someone else getting slated other than me for once.

I use food luring but only a little bit and only briefly. I find the dog either becomes reliant on it or uninterested after a while. I also often work dogs/situations were the dog isn't interested in food at all.

I have to say the ''modern kind methods'' let down huge chunks of high drive un foody/toy motivated dogs. Often you just need a clear approach and the dog will fall into line rapidly.

Adam

 

>
> I use food luring but only a little bit and only briefly. I find the dog either becomes reliant on it

That depends on how you use it.If the dog becomes reliant on it its not being used correctly.Thats the beauty of clicker training.

> I have to say the ''modern kind methods'' let down huge chunks of high drive un foody/toy motivated dogs. Often you just need a clear approach and the dog will fall into line rapidly.

Most living creatures fall into line rapidly when they receive electric shocks. But that does not make it desirable or worthwhile.

JG

This Training Game has been written about and used by  writers other than Karen Pryor in Don't shoot the Dog pg52/54 in my book.

Perhaps you haven't read the other books.

>Perhaps you haven't read the other books.

Until I know what they are I wouldn't be able to tell you if I've read them or not. But that doesn't explain what "fruits and veggies in some quarters" means (other than greengrocers).

But as you know about the Training Game you'll be able to answer the question; what action/s would you offer and what would be your feelings as you worked through your repertoire?

wow, this is a hot topic ! ...several key points...

- food is a quick and easy way to get dogs to do things we want them to do for reward...
- Dogs' health is being comprimised by the excessive use of food...
- toilet training ...could not understand that bit...need to re read...
- teaching to sit by natural movement of food above head makes a dog sit...

well...that is enough for me to chew on...and give my views..

I am AGAINST food as a training tool for reward. why ? philosophically...i want dog to do things IT ENJOYS ! so ? what is the point of food reward if it is WANTING to do something...of course SITTING is not going to be one of the activities of course...i fail to see the point of SIT i say...i want dog to be CALM sat or not !

AND i believe....that my pup is smart enough as others are to work out that i do not have FOOD to reward her with each time she RECALL OBEYS or SITS even for me on commande ...so ? she will DECIDE if HUNGRY or if she SEES FOOD in hand or not whether to obey or not ! ooh si...my pup will do that ...takes her 2 times of anything to work it out ! 2 missed food rewards ? NO 100 PERCENT GUARANTEE she will obey if FOOD induced !!! AND ...WHAT IF SHE IS NOT HUNGRY ???? ooh..

I REFUSE TO HAVE HER DISOBEY !

now...COMING to me is a PLEASANT thing to do...so ? she must NOT BE cALLED TOO OFTEN !

and i TRY and CALL her to PROTECT her...from cars...aggressive dogs...so ? she IS MAKING AN ASSOCIATION with RECALL and a PURPOSE for it i say...NO NEED FOR FOOD !

i am also...NOT walking around with SMELLY DOG TREATS in my bags all the time !

as for this SIT learning ? well my pup did not make the association of the action WITH THE WORD but the MOVEMENT above her head that made her sit i say ! so ? IGNORES the word !

i TELL her since last night...SIT when in car...so that I CAN SEE THROUGH THE WINDOW ! i was not driving last night i add...but she is MORE COMFORTABLE also when sat down...she resists of course...but then does it herself...all i have to do is USE THE WORD SIT and praise her for it !

I need my dog focused on the ACTIVITY not food also is another reason ! if we are out hunting...let me correct that...SEARCHING ...well i don't want pup to be looking for FOOD but what we are LOOKING FOR !

AND ONE LAST VERY GOOD REASON ???? if a STRANGER offered my pup FOOD on giving her an order ? then MY PUP IS AT RISK ! FOOD is a BAIT for dogs ! and i want her to REFUSE FOOD FROM STANGERS ! as i recommend OTHERS to do the same !

ooh...all MY views...just got a book today in post...THE PERFECT PUPPY...so about to launch into a read now pup is having her SIESTE...nap...

re read the WEE WEE thing...oh i have not the PATIENCE to walk around waiting for pup to WEE when i want her to...i take 3 months old pup out first thing in morning...last thing at night...say the words PEE PEE to her...if she as often does it at once...i praise and stroke her and that is all ! i go back in...if she pees somewhere unwanted by me ? i ignore her...wipe it off without her seeing me do it...oh learnt that the hard way...she got all excited at mops...thought it was a great game that...so ? i stopped mopping up to stop exciting her wiping her pee in front of her...

now..i have not used negative reactions to sight of pooh or wee in house yet...just ignoring it...and as i say take her out or if i SEE her circling and about to lower herself to DO IT...quickly call her OUTSIDE to finish it and praise her there...ignore it if i miss the timing correctly...

i have had pup 6 weeks i think now...she is now GOING OUTSIDE herself in a side corner to do her business i noticed the last week...so ? i like that...SHE has chosen a spot outside for it...i clean it up unseen by her or seen by her there now. not bothered she sees me doing it there...or gets happy about it..if SHE WANTS A MOP PULLING GAME AFTER A PEE WIPE UP IN RIGHT PLACE ??? then she gets it from me ! i allow it ! LOL !

>just got a book today in post...THE PERFECT PUPPY...so about to launch into a read now pup is having her SIESTE...nap...

One of the best books on puppy training available. :-) I'm sure you'll find it very helpful.

ja, i like the look of it. even though it has a lab pup on front not my dog !!! LOL !!! and it is CLEAR TEXT..large...and LOADS of PICTURES in COLOUR i like too...and the INDEx has a PUPPIES EYE VIEW OF THE WORLD i must read first...we do not know how others see us...see the world..for humans ! so dogs ? wow...each one is different i bet too like humans ! but they don't TALK ! so we all GUESS really hey ! lets read...what observers with much experience think...they can get things wrong too...but AT LEAST WE THINK ABOUT IT !!!

> - Dogs' health is being comprimised by the excessive use of food...
>

No, it isn't :) Food rewards need only be very small, it's the association of the food with the action that is important (doing the action = a rewarding thing :) ). A food reward the size of half a peanut is enough.
Over-feeding a dog compromises it's health, but it takes very little effort to factor treats into the dogs diet without making it fat :)

> I am AGAINST food as a training tool for reward. why ? philosophically...i want dog to do things IT ENJOYS ! so ? what is the point of food reward if it is WANTING to do something

The whole point of giving food as a reward is to make the behaviour the dog has done worthwhile/rewarding/enjoyable. If you choose not to use food, but an alternative reward (game, fus, praise, going for a walk, any other favouable outcome), it has the same effect. Getting the dog to associate a given command with a reward so the dog is more liekly to repeat the behaviour/obey the command. :)

> - food is a quick and easy way to get dogs to do things we want them to do for reward...

Yes, that along with the fact that nearly all dogs will think of food as a positive thing, even if they are not strongly food motivated :)

> as for this SIT learning ? well my pup did not make the association of the action WITH THE WORD but the MOVEMENT above her head that made her sit i say ! so ? IGNORES the word !

Pup has no idea what the word means untill you teach her. She will need to actually sit, while hearing the word, several times, in oder to associate the sound 'sit' with actually sitting. On top of this, if you teach her to sit in your home, you may well have to go through the training again in different places, as she may well associate the word 'sit' whilst in the house = put bum on floor, but not realise that's what she should do when she's in the car (for example).

As for dogs not being hungry - that shouldn't stop them wanting a food reward, dogs are natural scavengers and nearly all of them are true-to-form and will take whatever is on offer :) That said, if you find food is not motivational to your dog, there is nothing wrong with using other things as motivators/rewards, but they all have the same effect - positive association (depending on the particular dog, as my dog as a pup would not regard verbal praise as positive, it meant nothing to him untill food had been stongly associated with it).

The whole idea of reward-based trianing is to make our dogs enjoy doing what we tell them (using rewards), not to make them only obey when the reward is on offer. My dog is trained mostly with food rewards, but he will sit when told (with no reward on offer) as thanks to rewarding his compliance, he now finds the act of sitting on command a good thing to do :)

>Dogs' health is being comprimised by the excessive use of food...

The ones with compromised health through the misuse of food are invariably not the ones trained with the use of small food rewards, but those fed too much of the wrong food for their everyday meals.

> am AGAINST food as a training tool for reward. why ? philosophically...i want dog to do things IT ENJOYS !

Of course. So it helps if it can learn that it enjoys doing things you want it to do - and food (or other reward) can help make this connection.

>i fail to see the point of SIT

Again, the 'sit' is a required exercise if you want to do obedience.

>as for this SIT learning ? well my pup did not make the association of the action WITH THE WORD but the MOVEMENT above her head that made her sit i say ! so ? IGNORES the word !

Dogs don't automatically understand human languages; they need to associate the word with the action. So you get them to perform an action (or wait for them to do it naturally) then name it as the pup's doing it, so that it learns that 'sit' (or 'assis', or 'sedere', or 'sitzen' or whatever language) means 'put your bottom on the floor'.

well mastiff...your dog does things for food or not...has understood the word and command and accepts it...so that is good...did not react to praise words when a pup...well clever independant dog i say to that !! LOL ! mine is a little ACTRESS for attention in contrast i add...last night in the city ? where unlike local small village bars where people look and coo at her and she gets stroked often ? she got WELL miffed when wagging tail vigourously seeing people walking nearby that ignored her and walked on by as people do in the city ! she soon IGNORED everyone after that !!! LOL !!! i saw RIGHT through her ARROGANCE i dare call it last night...once other people had ignored her presence in teh square ? SHE ignored everyone else !!!  not even a couple of women at the bar later who cooed over her from the distance interested her ! ooh it was a big hit on her EGO last night ! but hey...she had to learn...she is NOT the center of everyone's attention ! and in cities ? people are rushing around like mad hatters busy "going places" as we say ! no time for too much WHAT A NICE PUPPY that is cooing there ! people are DISTANT more than in the villages in teh cities ! one does not get BONJOUR there either !!! ooh that is a BLESSING to me...i HATE that word "en passant" in passing ! with no other words added !

my pup is an attention seeker...from ME mostly i add...but USES other people i have watched to make a fuss over her...she IGNORES commands from others i add...and i say...that is more to do with the fact that I do NOT order her often things...if i do ? it is for a reason...she seems to understand that...but other people ? if they tell her to SIT one day when she understands and does that for me ? she will NOT obey them i do not think...and ball fetching ? she IGNORES commands for that off others if SHE does nto want to do it...if I ORDER HER to go PICK IT UP...not even having thrown it...she GOES TO GET IT...i am lazy...insist somtimes...at the LAST throw of a game session...she sometimes does not lie down to let me know she has had enough but ignores the ball...so ? i order her to collect it one last time. she does.

there are too many people who seeing a strange dog want to give it orders just for fun for themselves i say to that...and ? i think dogs sense it and refuse it. i was nervous at first...a few weeks back...as i thought this could DESTROY the 100 percent response to any orders i give her if she is allowed to refuse orders ...but ? if she makes the diffreence between ME and OTHER PEOPLE i am pleased. did not know how to ACHIEVE that myself of course...why i was getting irritated with it...

i was just thinking...how did tha happen ? well i think because if she refused orders to fetch ball from someone else...i did not give her the order she failed to obey from them...i let it pass...it annoys people that she does not collect the ball for them of course...but i will NOT HELP them...why ? i do not KNOW these people...this is MY pup...they did not ASK ME if they could give her an order...all those reasons...so ? just LOSE FACE in front of a dog that does not belong to you...whose owner you do not know...is what i say to that !!! LOL !!! and people HATE losing face...tell me she DOES NOT OBEY even...i laugh...and say ? SHE DOES ME !!! LOL !!!

I think you are humanizing her too much, she is a dog, a young one at that, and does not think as we would do. Dogs d o not generalise well so i wouldn't say she is refusing to do what other people are saying, just that she hasnt learnt the commands well enough to realise she is expected to do the same thing for other people. she made an association that when you say sit she gets praised for sitting. No one else has trained her to d othat so she doesn't see the association when someone else say it. Dogs aren't born knowing our language, that is why we have teach them.
If you want to do agilty and obedience etc basic obedience commands like sit and down are essential. 

ooh si, this pup is going to do agility and obedience...not sure about the walking with HEAD TWISTED though...if that is how to win big points only ? will give that a miss...she will WALK CLOSE yes when needed...but NOT WITH TWISTED HEAD not looking where she is walking !!! gosh i HATE seeing that !

aha ! good that ! she associates ME with doing things not others !!! wonderful ! LOL ! that made my day !

>i fail to see the point of SIT
>Again, the 'sit' is a required exercise if you want to do obedience.

There are lots of times when it's helpful to be able to instruct your dog to go into a particular position.  Sit, stand, down - roll over, are all ones I use regularly for health checks or wound inspection.  Up is another handy one if you want them on a higher surface for grooming etc.  It's so helpful to be able to do this at the vets too and it must make a nice change for them to have an obliging dog to look at :)

Inevitably there will be some positions/instructions that you use less often but they are nevertheless worth teaching.  A bright dog will generally join the dots together quite quickly and start to offer the desired behaviours without being asked.  One of mine is a regular visitor at the vets and always heads  for the scales for an up and sit when we go into the vets, and I no longer need to ask for 'settle' if we need to wait (I use settle for a lie down - meaning 'get comfy we may be here a while!').

Totally reward based approachs don't seem to produce hugely reliable dogs unless the dog is super toy orientated (in which case the level of prey drive may be too much for the average owner) imo. If you watch or listen to proffesional reward based trainers they often put alot limitations in their work. For example dog not let off around prey items or in unenclosed space. Breed limitiations abound as well.
Yes food/clickers ect are good for many things but I still maintain a mixed/balanced approach will get the best result for both dogs and human.

Look at it from the dogs perspective. If he's trained with a total reward approach and isn't sufficently motivated by it to become reliable he is likely to have his freedom/exercise significantly curtailed. Yes owners can be imaginative but when you get down to it people have their own lifes other than the dog. Use a mixture of rewards and aversives and you'll make that dogs recall/training reliabe. Dog will then have alot of freedom.

On the subject of electric shocks. As I've maintained and demonstrated with the odd video the discomfort the dog feels is very mild. You can observe the dogs reaction and see he isn't in pain ect. Anyone with even basic dog knowledge can see this if they get away from the '' omg an electric shock'' attitude. All the dogs I've trained with e collars have a positive response to the sight of the collar. Approach and sit to have it pout on is notrmal. This isn't something I've trained just something they've learned to get the collar on quick so they can go on a walk/training session which they enjoy.

On the subject of sit. I think iot depends on the dog. Some find it an uncomfortable position others just naturally prefer to stand. I think you should always play to the dogs strengths so if an owner/dog didn't want to learn the sit I wouldn't insit on training it.

Adam

I have to say the ''modern kind methods'' let down huge chunks of high drive un foody/toy motivated dogs. Often you just need a clear approach and the dog will fall into line rapidly.

Most dogs work for food Adam - it's a primary need. Some dogs do work best for toys, but I've not yet met a dog that, in the right environment, (not stressed etc) won't soon work for food for basics, which after all is what most owners want.

Dogs in all sports, including working trials, obedience, etc work for food (and toys) which shows how effective reward based methods are.

One of the sad things I find is that shock collar users constantly attack use derogatory terms towards reward training - pretending that high drive dogs can't be trained using rewards. I think this shows ignorance to be honest. No offence, just saying it how it is.

Lindsay

On the subject of electric shocks. As I've maintained and demonstrated with the odd video the discomfort the dog feels is very mild. You can observe the dogs reaction and see he isn't in pain ect

I've seen some videos which tell the truth, which are then later edited. Example - one of a yellow lab in the US, think the dog was called "boomer" or similar. The video shows him jumping around, happy and having fun. Yes, he looks happy,  EXCEPT at one point where the video shows "the ecollar walk" as I refer to it, where the dog is moving stiffly, in pain, when he is being shocked.This was shown for only a few seconds on the video, and I am sure the owner/trainer/person filming thought that us ignorant folk out here would not see the truth.  It was a total contrast to the other bits in the video. When it was mentioned a few times on forums, the video was mysteriously edited and later returned to Youtube.

In other vids, you can see dogs desperately scrambling to get to their owners, because so much depends on them beating the stim, ie doing the action before being shocked. There was another one, again it may be removed now, of a rottie being taught via negative reinforcement (basically, equivalent of an ear pinch) to hold items. The dog was distressed, clearly stressed and in pain, and yet the family and trainer thought it was all just fab.

How sad for the dog to live a life full of negative reinforcement. I've seen dogs in shock collar videos desperately trying to communicate and get praise/affection, wagging the tips of their tails, yet the only reinforcement they get is the stim being turned off. How sad. Yes I know some who use shock do use toys, but many don't as they believe the turning off of the stim is enough "reward".

I think that says it all really.

Lindsay

> n the subject of electric shocks. As I've maintained and demonstrated with the odd video the discomfort the dog feels is very mild. You can observe the dogs reaction and see he isn't in pain ect. Anyone with even basic dog knowledge can see this if they get away from the '' omg an electric shock'' attitude. All the dogs I've trained with e collars have a positive response to the sight of the collar.

The videos demonstrate how the poor dogs are desperately trying to please the handler to avoid further pain,you can acheive much better results without needing to inflict pain.
Anyone with even basic dog knowledge is capable of training a dog without the need of electric collars and nothing you say will change the fact that e-collars are cruel and are already illegal in Wales and hopefully they will be made illegal everywhere else before long. Then all these quick fix "trainers" will have to train dogs with positive and kind methods(including food) or find themselves out of work.

To try to tell us that dogs have a positive response to the sight of an e-collar is ridiculous.

> Use a mixture of rewards and aversives
>All the dogs I've trained with e collars have a positive response to the sight of the collar
> As I've maintained and demonstrated with the odd video the discomfort the dog feels is very mild.

I'm confused, if the shock from an e-collar is so mild the dog has a positive association with the e-collar - how can the use of an e-collar be called an AVERSIVE? Or, are you trying to tell us the e-collar is a reward? In which case, what aversive are you referring to?

> As I've maintained and demonstrated with the odd video the discomfort the dog feels is very mild

OK. lets say we believe the dog only feels a very mild 'stim' - it's still bad enough to the dog to want to avoid the 'stim', or the collar would not work.

So it doesn't really matter what words are used to descibe it - the dog doesn't like it to the point of wanting to avoid it, that's the only way results are obtained with the e-collar :(