If you dog knows the clicker.. you can use it for attention to handler.. click..gets the bite..

or in the back transport..when the heeling is going great.. click.. and the dog gets the bite..

It makes the timing better.. especially for novice handlers that forget to let go of the leash and end up correcting thier dogs for the bite!

Thats wild.

Ok, I'm interested. Tell me more. . .

Put some real stuff in a post. Start to finish, where you have used the clicker in protection. This is bugging me out. I don't like it, but I must know more. . . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

While I understand and appreciate the use of clickers, I'm having a hard time coming up with a benefit to them in bitework. The conditioned reinforcer is used to reward the dog at a moment when you are not able to provide the PRIMARY or UNCONDITIONED reinforcer in a timely manner (i.e., click the dolphin at the apex of a high jump cuz you can't stick the fish in his mouth at that moment; click the fast pickup of the dumbbell cuz you can't get the ball to him at that instant cuz he's 20' away and facing away from you, etc). But if you can provide the primary or unconditioned reinforcer (the REAL reward) at that moment, then why waste time with the clicker? Commands which allow the dog to do his work, such as voran for the hold & bark or packen to go bite, become conditioned reinforcers in their own right because they regularly preceed the primary reinforcer. When a dog is first learning to give eye contact with the handler in order to earn the bite, you give the fuss command and wait for him to finally give you just a quick glance up. At that instant, you send him "packen". In 2-3 repetitions, he makes the association that looking up brings his reward. There is no need for another step in there with the clicker.

Another example, say you are teaching the dog the hold and bark on a pole. The helper agitates, locks up, and waits. The dog gets frustrated, tries to bite, can't reach, whines, etc. Finally barks once - instantly the helper gives the primary reinforcer: the bite. You COULD add the clicker at the instant he barked to mark the correct behavior, THEN give the bite, but why would you want to? The dog already got the information he needed when the helper responded to the bark with a bite.

Another example, say you are back to working on eye contact. But this time you are only going to send him for a hold and bark, not a bite. You wouldn't want the dog thinking that the click automatically meant he is released to bite without being given a command. Cuz if he did, when you say fuss to get attention and eye contact, and he gives it, you click to mark the behavior and off he goes to bite on his own. But unfortunately, you only wanted to reward him by sending him for the H&B, not a bite. Leaving the clicker out and saying voran or revier at the instant that he gives eye contact is rewarding to the dog in its own right and gives him the info he needs to learn.

I understand the comment about removing the novice handler's poor timing so that the dog learns faster, but I always argue that a novice handler has to be trained just as intensely as the novice dog does. Removing the handler from the equation will often improve the dog's speed and clarity in learning; however, you haven't taught the handler anything. They have to practice that precise timing or they never get better, and then they have the same problem with their second dog, etc. I'll sacrifice a bit of precision on that first dog in order to improve the handler's skills so he can benefit from the experience in the future. Dogs are wonderfully resilient; they'll get over those stupid, first-time-handler mistakes (thank God!!).

Sch3fh2:

Don't be so complete with your answers. Leave something for the rest of us. LOL.

“The advantages to a clicker are the ability to mark the moment very accurately”
“let a second person do it for you”
“prefer to use a special word”
“I'm having a hard time coming up with a benefit to them in bitework.”
“I understand the comment about removing the novice handler's poor timing so that the dog learns faster…They have to practice that precise timing or they never get better, and then they have the same problem with their second dog”

The principals and practices of using a clicker are the same as praising your dog. So to answer the question when or how do I use a clicker is as easy as replacing the word “good boy” with a click. When you dog first hears “good boy” it means nothing to him. We condition him to learn that good things happen when we say it. The same process is needed for the clicker. What the clicker gives you over vocal praise is that a person other than the handler can praise(click) without the dog knowing that it is not coming form the handler. This lends itself to a novice handler who has a tough enough time learning how to hold a loose leash and not fall over his dog or when the dog is out of sight of the handler.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Vince P.:
Sch3fh2:
Don't be so complete with your answers. .

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Oops, sorry. Got bored at work again. Couldn't help myself. Self-restraint was never my strong suit! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

What the clicker gives you over vocal praise is that a person other than the handler can praise(click) without the dog knowing that it is not coming form the handler

Makes sense. But I think there is another element to it all: if one uses a word (or phrase) to mark desired behavour, then these words must always be presented in the same tone, at the same vocal speed, etc. to be truely effective. Otherwise I think the dog will have to separately process similar responses: ie, "Yeessss...", vs "yes!". One advantage of the clicker is that it makes the same sound, in the same tone everytime. No ambiguity for the dog.
(Good grief! Am I defending clicker training now... :rolleyes: )

I don't find that it's an issue for the dogs if there is some slight variation in the presentation of the CR. In fact, in my excitement at the dog figuring something out, I have accidentally used totally different words... yes, yeah, awright!, perfect!, etc. But the excitement in the voice is always there and my body language is certainly clear to them. I get the same expression of instant joy and anticipation for the UR. Blame it on discrimination and generalization, I guess, but it all works.

It seems like some of the the top handlers uses clickers nowadays, like ismael de vos from belgium who won the belgian championchip in IPO with his rottie, beating all the mals and GSDs, and another guy from belgien who is worldchampion in mondioring. Ismael had a clicker seminar recently in norway, what impressed many people was the total control he had on his highdrive dog without heighten his voice, the dog looked like it was controled by a joystick, impressive!
He also used a clicker to solve problems in dogs that had been trained with wrong methods, and he did this very easy.
Another good thing with clickers is that you are never in conflict with your dog, it´s all about trust and respect between the dog and handler.

Originally posted by Sch3FH2:
While I understand and appreciate the use of clickers, I'm having a hard time coming up with a benefit to them in bitework. What about in the H&B??.. the handler could click one, two, three times to reinforce good, strong, pushy barking, then finally give a bite command (or helper could give bite).. this would follow something like a variable reinforcement schedule, and should cause the dog to try it's butt off to get those clicks... which would mean that he is close to a bite...

just me thinking outloud...