Well now you've done it, I think my brain is going to explode. Vince old buddy, I think you set me up! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> This reminds me of when my nuclear physicist uncle proved to me that .999 really equals one!!! What's next, is the world going to turn out to be Octagonal???

I am aware that people have been trainig through drive for next to forever, but I had no idea that this type of training is also used for obedience, except in the learning phase. I guess people like Bernard, Ivan, Vince etc. are for real and they are here to stay.(AND WIN!)

No matter how you train I guess the key is practice, test, practice, test, etc.

I'm not convinced but I certainly am going to try and expand my knowledge in that direction and I will start off with the new Flinks video. The main reason I'm not convinced is that I've seen the difference between children that were raised on the "I say, you do (or else)" method of the old days, verses these new "modivational" type schools of thought today. I reckon when I have kids they will be raised the "old fashion way." The bond that you develope over time, their respect for their elders (leaders), and general obedience are the reasons why I feel this way. Sound familiar?

Do these "new" methods not include corrections at all?? It's one thing to get a dog to focus for 15 minutes for his prey item. Is getting him to obey 24/7 (for his prey item) only a matter of further training, through drive? I train dogs to guard and protect my home and family and to always obey me. I am not particular about how they look when they're doing it; Does this factor into the equation? Last but not least, how much does the experience level of the trainer have to do with it? This training obedience completely through drive sounds a bit like crawling through the eye of a needle to this novice trainer, when compared to the "I say you do (or else)" method anyway. Thoughts? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

First I will start by dismissing the myth that positive training does not have a correction phase. In most cases it does. The higher the prey or food drive the later this is introduced. The basic principle is that your dog makes the choice. Road one leads to satisfaction of drive while road two leads to failure. The more mistakes your dog performs the harder he works for success. Because he does not get corrected for a mistake his drive only increases for the work. As the distraction levels increase or trial time comes nearer corrections are then introduced. This is why a super high drive dog if trained correctly might not need corrections until higher levels of distraction. My last Leerburg pup had super high food drive. I had a 100% reliable recall at level 8 distraction with out ever a correction for this. If done correctly this is a beautiful picture of obedience. But this takes much more time and patience then the old jerk and yell methods.

Vince wrote:
"First I will start by dismissing the myth that positive training does not have a correction phase. In most cases it does."

J:
Thanks for clearing that up for me Vince as it was by far my biggest hang up.

Vince wrote:
"My last Leerburg pup had super high food drive. I had a 100% reliable recall at level 8 distraction with out ever a correction for this. If done correctly this is a beautiful picture of obedience. But this takes much more time and patience then the old jerk and yell methods."

J:
Vince, as I mentioned, I'm basically training guard dogs here. I know... I'm the lowest form of life on the training ladder. I wonder, does your level 8 distraction include food? If you were training the dog you described in food refusal (an important one for me), would I be correct in assuming that you would need to resort to what you call "the old jerk and yell methods?"

I know... it's the same place we left off discussing my deep concerns on how to teach a ball crazy dog (without corrections) to stop his pursuit into the street after a ball (another important one for me). I'm not trying to be argumentative with people who have way more experience than me. I'm only looking for answers to what I feel are legitemate questions.

Would you have your child obey you through the use of candy, just because he was crazy for it? Or would you have him obey you based on "other" reasons?

You use whatever works for your dog. My last pup had a higher food drive then ball drive. He loved playing ball but he was not ball crazy. Some dogs would play ball until they pass out. For this type of dog a ball is better. For the first two weeks I rewarded him with food every time I called him. This was the learning period where he associated the word come with food. Then I started intermittent rewards, which actually increased his response to the word. Then I started introducing distractions. With each level I used a higher reward. Either more food or tastier food. I would do this by having a stranger call my dog with kibbles in their hand and I would call my dog midstream giving hotdogs when he came. I would then give the stranger hotdogs and I would have pieces of steak. I worked my way up to pumping my dog up with a ball and sending him after it while mid way calling him back to me with the best food that he liked. He would stop at a full run and turn around to come back to me for this. Again the higher the drive the later you can introduce corrections. Now if your dog has no prey drive or food drive then all of this goes out the window. That is why this type of training is better suited for sport dogs. With a police service dog you can not take the chance that his drive is at the level needed for a reliable response and with a pet the drive is usually not there in the first place. But if you have the right dog the obedience from a positively trained dog is amazing to see.

Vince,

Now I am starting to get a better picture of how you train through the problems I have mentioned. Thank you for continuing with this thread.

I will concede that these methods will probably produce a happier looking working dog. Which I understand is very important to some. Do you also believe that these methods will produce a more RELIABLE obedience, on a 24/7 basis? This is what I am questioning. My gut feeling is that they will not, but I don't know. Isn't making your dog perform something to your standards before he gets his reward just another form of compulsion, with the added hassle of frustration when he doesn't get it right, or until he does? I would argue that it is. I have some very obedient pups in training. I am training them through traditional compulsion methods. They very rarely get corrected anymore because they mind me very well. I hope you can understand why I am so leery (but willing) when it comes to considering a change in the methods that have worked so well for me.

If I understand all of this, you are putting off compulsion for as long as the dogs drives will allow. I, on the other hand, am introducing compulsion as early as I think I can without screwing up the dog. I know that we both probably have the same goals in the end. It's just a riddle that blows my mind. I don't understand the value in putting off the inevitable any longer than you have to. I don't see this causing less conflict between the dog and handler, and that is certainly one of my goals by introducing corrections early on. It would not be the first time I was wrong though. I don't know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

“Do you also believe that these methods will produce a more RELIABLE obedience, on a 24/7 basis?”

First of all to me a command is not 100% reliable unless your dog can perform it under the highest level of distractions. To expect a puppy to do this under any training methods is unrealistic. To put a puppy in a situation that he must obey under the highest level of distraction is poor handling.

“Isn't making your dog perform something to your standards before he gets his reward just another form of compulsion”

No. If done correctly this is just a form of play to your dog.

“with the added hassle of frustration when he doesn't get it right, or until he does?”

Remember frustration builds drive.

“I have some very obedient pups in training. I have trained them through traditional compulsion methods. They very rarely get corrected anymore because they mind me very well.”

I do not argue that you don’t. But have you ever overcorrected dog or corrected at the wrong time? If I make a mistake there is no harm done. Just do it again. Most of the time with more enthusiasm from the dog. Can you say the same.

“I hope you can understand why I am so leery (but willing) when it comes to considering a change in the methods that have worked so well for me.”

This is not a very radical training philosophy. Most trainers teach with positive methods and then use compulsion to proof. I just use positive methods for light proofing and leave compulsion for higher levels. Trust me my prong collar does not collect dust. I just put it aside until a later stage than you do.

“If I understand all of this, you are putting off compulsion for as long as the dogs drives will allow. I, on the other hand, am introducing compulsion as early as I think I can without screwing up the dog.”

Yes I take full advantage of what my dog’s genetics have given me and I don’t have to worry about screwing up my dog too early.

Vince wrote:
"First of all to me a command is not 100% reliable unless your dog can perform it under the highest level of distractions. To expect a puppy to do this under any training methods is unrealistic. To put a puppy in a situation that he must obey under the highest level of distraction is poor handling."

J: Non-answer. But I agree 110%. My "pups" are 11 months now and I expect quite a bit from them at this stage.

Vince wrote:
"No. If done correctly this is just a form of play to your dog"

J: This is where we start to differ.
I don't want my dogs to look at OB as a game. I want them to look at OB as a fact of life. I think the earlier (within reason!) you can get them to understand that the better off you are.

Vince wrote:
"Remember frustration builds drive."

J: I don't doubt that. I question the "zero" negetive effects it has on the dog/handler relationship.

Vince wrote:
"Have you ever overcorrected dog or corrected at the wrong time? If I make a mistake there is no harm done. Just do it again. Most of the time with more enthusiasm from the dog. Can you say the same."

J: #1-Yes, I have over-corrected, and also have corrected with poor timing. #2-Mistakes always equal a set back. #3-No, I can't say the same, but lets not confuse frustration with enthusiasm.

Vince wrote:
"Yes I take full advantage of what my dog’s genetics have given me and I don’t have to worry about screwing up my dog too early."

J: There is more than one way to screw up a dog. I'm not saying that YOU are. I don't think I am either. Plenty of opportunities to screw up a dog exist in training. Lets not kid ourselves in thinking that any method is foolproof.

Jason,

With the obedience training you aren't using frustration, but reward. It starts as continious reforcement. After the puppy gets it down the reinforcement is intermittent. With frustration you show the puppy something it wants and then take it away just before he gets it, with reward you just give it to him so there is no frustration. If the puppy sees the result of the behavior as only yeilding frustration the obedience won't take.

Oh no, what have I gotten myself into?

Richard, what are you creating in the dog when he fails to earn his reward and you withhold it? Are you saying that you just give it to him anyway? (surely not I guess)

Jason,

No you guide the puppy into the position and then reward it. You can also use a process called shaping. As the puppy gets closer and closer to the desired behavior you reward that making it closer to the desired behavior prior to the reward, until you have the desired behavior.

The most difficult thig to teach this way is Stay. The puppy wants to move to get the reward. The way around this is to chain the behaviors. Put the dog in a sit or down, tell it to stay and walk away. If it breaks take back to the spot (no correction) and start over. After it has held the stay for a few seconds, call it and then reward. Slowly increase the time required before the recall.

The puppy doesn't see this as frustration, they only see the reward. In addition the behaviors you don't want are extinguished because they aren't rewarded.