Quote: brad . martin

...Basically the correction teaches the dog that he has to sit even though he is really reved up. In the first steps of this training that's all you need. The dog is learning that sit means: sit-now; and as a result is rewarded with drive satisfaction.

So, when you are first teaching "sit" while in drive, the ball moves up to mold a good sit by the dog following the ball up. This, IMO, is motivation. You say the leash correction tells the dog that it "has" to do this command immediately. Is that compulsion?

 Quote:

Originally Posted By: Brad . Martin
...Basically the correction teaches the dog that he has to sit even though he is really reved up. In the first steps of this training that's all you need. The dog is learning that sit means: sit-now; and as a result is rewarded with drive satisfaction.


So, when you are first teaching "sit" while in drive, the ball moves up to mold a good sit by the dog following the ball up. This, IMO, is motivation. You say the leash correction tells the dog that it "has" to do this command immediately. Is that compulsion?

Yes I guess it would be compulsion, but in the "please sir may I have some more" way Brad described because they are in drive. I used a small leash pop to get the sit "quick" as my dog would do the slower "stalking" the prey item kind of sit when I held the prey item up at first.

Here is a tiny video I found of this. Feel free to use it as a critique, I am a Flinks beginner. (Not a beginner at building and training in drive, just new to Flinks' methods.)

http://s161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/farwesttoller/?action=view&current=ob001.flv

I guess what I'm driving at (pun intended!) is that in the learning phase the Flinks method uses both motivation (the prey moving up) and compulsion (the leash correction) simultaniously. Am I right here?

Furthermore, Bernard also uses the grabbing of the dog's side during the "out" training for the first time. Then he puts the prey back into motion and lets the dog chase after it. Is this compulsion-motivation scenerio again?

I am very fond of these techniques after watching and rewatching and building drive with my dog. It is very fun for both Bella and I. I am just trying to grasp a very important peice of the puzzle, and how it relates to the methods I have learned from Ed's DVD Basic Obedience.

The way I see it, a purely motivational person would train with clickers and treats, a purely compusive trainer would correct until the dog does what the trainer wants. The Flinks method seems to use both at the same time. Ed's method also seems to embrace both. The difference seems to me to be that in the Flinks method, upon first learning a command uses compulsion to provoke a speedy reaction, whilst using the prey to mold the sit. Whereas, the Basic Obedience would use these two tools at different times: motivation during the learing phase, and compulsion during the correction/distraction phase. Ed also uses prase after the correction, and I would equate that to the "drive satisfaction" in the Flinks method. Would you all agree?

 Quote: rick miller

I guess what I'm driving at (pun intended!) is that in the learning phase the Flinks method uses both motivation (the prey moving up) and compulsion (the leash correction) simultaniously. Am I right here?

Furthermore, Bernard also uses the grabbing of the dog's side during the "out" training for the first time. Then he puts the prey back into motion and lets the dog chase after it. Is this compulsion-motivation scenerio again?

I am very fond of these techniques after watching and rewatching and building drive with my dog. It is very fun for both Bella and I. I am just trying to grasp a very important peice of the puzzle, and how it relates to the methods I have learned from Ed's DVD Basic Obedience.

The way I see it, a purely motivational person would train with clickers and treats, a purely compusive trainer would correct until the dog does what the trainer wants. The Flinks method seems to use both at the same time. Ed's method also seems to embrace both. The difference seems to me to be that in the Flinks method, upon first learning a command uses compulsion to provoke a speedy reaction, whilst using the prey to mold the sit. Whereas, the Basic Obedience would use these two tools at different times: motivation during the learing phase, and compulsion during the correction/distraction phase. Ed also uses prase after the correction, and I would equate that to the "drive satisfaction" in the Flinks method. Would you all agree?

Disclaimer: I am on my first Schutzhund dog and first dog I am training using Flinks' methods, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

No, I don't agree Flinks uses compulsion in the learning phase. What's not, I think, clear in the Drive etc video is that he teaches the basic commands (Sit, Down, Come, Heel, Stand (?)) to puppies as young as 8 weeks using purely food to guide the dog into the desired behavior. So by the time he gives the commands using drive-compulsion-drive, the dog already knows the commands, and compulsion is used only if the dog does not obey within the desired time frame (1-1/2 seconds after command is given). Compulsion is used to correct wilfull slow/no compliance, NOT to teach.

In fact, he demonstrated at a recent seminar several ways to correct obedience problems without using any compulsion at all:

One was to fix forging. Instead of using leash jerks, he taught how to use the ball to motivate the dog into staying in the correct position on his own.

Another was my dog's enthusiastic, knock-Mom-down recall. Rather than reprimand him for punching me in the stomach with his paws, Flinks simply had me stand with my back close to a fence. "Dogs aren't stupid - they don't want to run into it." Sure enough, on the next try my dog came in just as fast but sat rather than jumped on me. Then it's just a matter of gradually standing farther away from the fence each time.

And, he was quite hard on one handler whose dog showed marked overall unhappiness as a result of being taught a forced retrieve.

He kept emphasizing "Be fair to your dog. Give him a chance to obey before you correct." But a dog can only obey if it knows what it's supposed to do. Teach first, then correct if necessary.

Again, my interpretation based on my vast (one dog) personal experience.

 Quote:

So, when you are first teaching "sit" while in drive, the ball moves up to mold a good sit by the dog following the ball up. This, IMO, is motivation. You say the leash correction tells the dog that it "has" to do this command immediately. Is that compulsion?

Yes.

 Quote:

Furthermore, Bernard also uses the grabbing of the dog's side during the "out" training for the first time. Then he puts the prey back into motion and lets the dog chase after it. Is this compulsion-motivation scenerio again?

I do believe it is; however, do not bother with an OUT yet.

 Quote:

No, I don't agree Flinks uses compulsion in the learning phase.

Me too.

 Quote:

he teaches the basic commands (Sit, Down, Come, Heel, Stand (?)) to puppies as young as 8 weeks using purely food to guide the dog into the desired behavior. So by the time he gives the commands using drive-compulsion-drive, the dog already knows the commands, and compulsion is used only if the dog does not obey within the desired time frame

This is true. But the desired time frame is much quicker than the standard 1 - 1 and 1/2 seconds.

It's also important to remember that not all dogs are capable of doing drive work; some just don't have the required level of prey drive. If prey drive is not at a reasonable level when compulsion is introduced the quick corrections are quite stressful on the poor things.

Thanks, Anita, for the insight. I think it is vrey important that Bernard teaches the commands using marker training in the puppy phase. However, I am sure he doesn't teach the "out" to them at this point.

 Quote: brad . martin

 Quote:

No, I don't agree Flinks uses compulsion in the learning phase.

Me too.

On the Flinks Building Drive DVD, he uses compulsion to teach the "out" for sure. And I am sure he didn't teach that dog "out" before this because he also says not to teach your dog the "out" before the dog has a good grip. With this in mind, isn't that pure compulsion?

 Quote: rick miller

On the Flinks Building Drive DVD, he uses compulsion to teach the "out" for sure. And I am sure he didn't teach that dog "out" before this because he also says not to teach your dog the "out" before the dog has a good grip. With this in mind, isn't that pure compulsion?

Hmmm... I need to review that part. Off the top of my head: Isn't the flanking maneuver supposed to be done so the dog doesn't realize it's you doing it? I'd think there's a big distinction between surprising the dog into letting go (flanking or whatever) and forcing him to let go via some direct means such as prying his mouth open. Once the dog understands what "out" means, then use compulsion/correction to demand instant compliance? Like I said, I need to watch that part again.

On teaching the out to puppies, here's a quote from Ed's writeup on the "Preparing Your Dog for the Helper (with Bernhard Flinks)" DVD:

"When young dogs are introduced to the OUT at the right time in training (15 to 16 weeks) and in the right way they are on the road to having a solid OUT for the rest of their lives." http://www.leerburg.com/310.htm

I believe it is. However, the reason the OUT is not molded with food, for example, is because if the dog perceives a conflict from the handler over the prey item then the grip can suffer. A quick pinch gets the job done without the dog ever having to feel conflicted and stressed by the perceived threat of the handler "stealing" the toy. This stress will affect the "into my arms" portion of the drive training in a major way, as well. Most importantly is putting the dog right back into drive after it releases the prey item; this will help condition your OUT because the dog learns that by outing the toy he gets to go right back into drive, and it relieves any stress from the compulsion. If done well it only needs to be done a couple of times.

 Quote:

Isn't the flanking maneuver supposed to be done so the dog doesn't realize it's you doing it?

Yes, because if the dog knows it's the handler it will then lead to conflict.

I think this discussion is begging for a definition of "compulsion." In a strictly compulsive training regimine, the handler teaches the dog that unless it performs the desired action, bad things happen. For example, a compulsive heel would be to walk the dog and then quickly change directions, expecting the dog to fail, which it will, and then correcting the failure until the dog thinks that if it doesn't follow the trainer it will get a correction. My question is: Does the dog associate the correction with the trainer, or it's bad behavior/failure to comply?

I recall Ed saying the correction teaches the dog to think "I better not do that, I remember what happened last time," or something along those lines. Another example is when Ed discusses E-Collar use and correcting a dog who bites a leash, he says that he wants the dog to think that it is chewing on electricity. In the E-Collar scenerio, at least, I think the dog associates the correction with the behavior, not the handler.

So, again, I understand that "surprising" the dog into outing is what you are calling this action, but don't you think the dog is surprised when the pinch collar hits and his handler is telling him to heel? This dog probably is facing the other direction from the handler when the correction comes, so how can it know that you did it?