I am not purporting to answer for Vince here and am speaking only for myself.

The "average pet owner" has a dog that is completely out of control and has not mastered even the simplest obedience exercises. Therefore the "average pet owner" usually makes a poor market for the reception of even moderately advanced dog training information or introduction to any of the tools used by serious dog trainers. In that latter category I might even include such items as tennis balls.

Pete Felknor

Vince,

With regard to food reward and why some people have a problem with it, I believe that the prevailing view of the anti-food reward camp is that the dog should bond with the handler and respond to the handler and not the treat. However if that was a problem I'm sure the many quality dog trainers here and elsewhere wouldn't be using it, right?

If I've mis-stated the argument I hope someone will chime in and help me out. Thanks.

Pete,

Thanks for your input. I would like to believe that there are some well intended pet-dog owners who are simply unaware or misinformed about prong collars. Perhaps they would be accepting of their use on their pet if their concern could be relieved. With all of the experience here I have to believe someone has come up with a way to successfully explain it.

The reason I ask is that a lady I know with the human society is totally against its use. She runs a training program for dogs adopted from their shelter. I'm trying but not succeeding in overcoming her objections. She says you shouldn't have to hurt your dog to get it to obey. My argument is that dogs need discipline too. Apparently I haven't been real convincing. What are your thoughts? Thanks again.

You have probably heard that prong collars are illegal in Australia, and I believe the same is true in the UK. (Any of you British trainers are welcome to jump in here).

Prong collars, if used correctly, do not hurt the dog. It's important that the collar be very snug and fit just behind the dog's ears. The problem a lot of people seem to have is with the concept of this snug fit. They don't understand that a loosely-fitting prong collar can actually BE painful for the dog, because it requires way too hard of a jerk on the leash before the collar "responds". The idea is to deliver the correction in a quick pop that causes a pinching sensation to be evenly distributed around the dog's neck. Each pinching sensation is roughly the same as it is when you give a moderate (NOT hard) pinch to the flesh on your forearm. It's a way of correcting the dog that is much more humane than strangling him with a choke chain--which, in fact, can even be dangerous.

This humane society lady needs to understand too that there are many, many dogs that will resist the "gentle reason" approach. And these are not necessarily hyperdominant alpha males. Or big guard breeds. I've seen female Shih-Tzus that could have definitely benefitted from a session or two with a pinch collar.

I have plenty of experience with prong collars and have never injured a dog yet. My dog doesn't even particularly mind my putting a prong collar on him. He just knows that we're going to work--that we're about serious business. Which is as it should be.

By the way, once a dog is trained I feel that the prong collar can spend most of its time in the equipment shed. I know people who keep prong collars on their dogs all the time, even when they're lying around the house. This is crazy.

Pete Felknor

Vince, I know that you CAN train without any force... but it seems that the same results could be accomplished in 1/10 of the time with a little force in the beginning.

What I want to know is whether the long way... pure induction has advantages over the quicker way (with some force). Is pure induction worth the extra effort for a competition trainer?

Originally posted by Dave Lilley:
The problem is, it can be very frustrating and time consuming since the proper behavior must be:
1. induced somehow
2. then reinforced

Question: Is there any reason why step 1 (induction) is better than compelling the correct behavior then rewarding it? Why is the patient way better than the more efficient way?

Dave,

IMO the inductive way eliminates any risk of breaking the bond of trust between you & your dog in a working relationship. Compelling correct behavior (and then rewarding it) IMO accomplishes nothing insofar as teaching the dog how to think or problem-solve, especially if the dog has options of behaviors to choose from in accomplishing a task, or if the dog has to work independently at all.

IMO -- inductive methods bring out what is in the dog to accomplish (genetics) -- compulsion puts in what may or may not be in the dog to do. Both roads lead to Rome -- it just depends what kind of a ride you want getting there.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Dave Lilley:
Let me give an example of the inductive vs. compel method-- remember, I'm only talking about INITIALLY forcing the dog into the correct position to show him what you want THEN rewarding of course.

Ideally--I want the dog to retrieve the ball and drop it into my hand.

Problem-- dog returns with ball and drops ball near me-- then tries to pick it up again before I can get to it.

Induction--Using food, I can get her to return the ball and drop it on the ground to get the treat. But placing it into my hand seems more difficult without using any force.

Force--Is there any reason NOT TO use the leash to guide (compel) the dog closer and show it what I want? Is pure induction better? --- Thoughts?

Dave,

You can attach a string to the ball or dumbell or whatever you want to use to train retrieve. You pull the object away every time the dog releases it or starts to release it. This should teach the dog to hold the object pretty firmly and not want to let go. You can teach this like a game. Once the dog is solid about not releasing the object you can call the dog to you. You then can put your hand under the dog's mouth to catch the ball when you say "Out". As soon as the dog "outs" (drops the ball into your hand) throw the ball for the dog as a reward.

I don't know if this is what you wanted -- or if you only wanted a food example.

Thanks Ellen... I'm trying to induce thought in myself and other board members (pardon the pun) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Reason: It seems so much of what we do is based on hunches or experiences that haven't really been thought through.

So far I have gleaned from responses that inductive techniques may be preferred to compulsion (force)because they are:

1. Easier on the dogs mental well-being
2. More conducive to bonding
3. Less likely to screw up the puppy

Any other reasons?

Dave wrote:

****What I want to know is whether the long way... pure induction has advantages over the quicker way (with some force). Is pure induction worth the extra effort for a competition trainer?***

Dave, in my opinion, the answer is ABSOLUTELY. I couldn't have said it better than Ellen, but would like to expand a bit on your example with the dog not wanting to return a ball to your hand. I think we can all relate to this particular problem <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> . The induction method I use does not involve food. What the dog wants is to play, which in this case coincides with what you want, except you want to play it your way. Introducing food into this formula, IMO, confuses the issue--you are replacing what he wants with what he may or may not want more, i.e., you are distracting the dog's thought process. (Boy, I hope I'm making myself clear...) I want the dog to understand on his own what he needs to do to continue a game. So if my dog drops his ball 15 feet away from me, I pretend to be really clueless, turn away, look up at the sky and start whistling dixie. Sooner or later he WILL bring the ball to where I want it and will get an immediate reward in the form of play. Yes, it may take a long time, depending on a dog, but it hasn't failed yet. What the dog learns from this is not just another command or exercise, but he also learns how to make things happen by thinking, by tackling a problem successfully on his own--without any hard feelings. He thinks he is manipulating me when in fact I manipulate him, in other words, it's a two-way communication.

Independent thinking is important in what Ellen uses her dogs for--herding, but it has its place even in such a structured competitive training as SchH, especially in tracking. A dog which is used to independent thinking is more likely to tackle a difficult problem than the one trained in compulsion, which in this case will most likely shut down.

Paul wrote:
****I've never used food or toy reward. I would simply help the dog into the position that I want while giving the command and then praise them once in position. I guess anytime force, whether mild or hard, is used then I suppose it could be described as "compulsion" training". Is my understanding correct?****

Yes, Paul, your understanding is correct, as far as I'm concerned. Food and toys are used not only as a reward, but as a training tool. If you never use either, then I guess you never trained for tracking. I can't begin to imagine how you would teach a puppy to track without food. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

****I believe that the prevailing view of the anti-food reward camp is that the dog should bond with the handler and respond to the handler and not the treat.****

The prevailing view of the pro-food reward camp is that the dog should bond with the handler and respond to the handler and not the treat. I think both camps are in agreement. The question is what creates a better bond.

****However if that was a problem I'm sure the many quality dog trainers here and elsewhere wouldn't be using it, right?****

Exactly.