Catherine Amodeo wrote: I have a couple of questions. You said the fastest way to get a bond of trust and respect is to use food and play. Do you use this because you're under a time crunch or have you found it to be the most effective? What other methods have you tried that didn't really work well?

***** When I say fastest that includes most effective. In the past I’ve used play and OB. Those both worked but were not as fast or effective.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: The form of play you describe is interesting. I've never seen humans play that way with dogs. Is the idea that the human interacts with the dog as a dog would?

***** That’s my theory of why it works. Another way of establishing dominance without conflict is through the use of body language. There are books on this topic but I’ve never read them I got it from other trainers and my own experience taking lots of bites.
Renee Falconer wrote: I think you misinterpreted the word "fastest" to mean a "short-cut". Lou probably meant to say "fastest and most effective", and probably, the only way.

***** Thanks for jumping in here Renee. You’re right in that I should have written fastest and most effective. But there are other ways, they just don’t work as well FOR ME. Other may have great results and if so I’d like to hear about them.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: Is the point of this to interact with the dog as another dog would?

***** That’s the start of it for me.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: Regardless of what's done in the wild, dogs are not wild animals. I no longer believe that a dog is a pack animal, certainly not in the sense that a wolf or wild dog is.

***** I don’t think that there’s much difference. When I started in dogs I took a chair to the zoo and spent several days in front of the wolf cage watching their interactions and taking notes. Then I did some reading and talking to trainers and went back for a few more days. I have a small pack of dogs (three) that interact all day long. They look identical to what I saw at the wolf’s display at the zoo. I think that most dogs are solo in a house and we don’t respond properly to the dog’s signals, so he stops giving them and finds other ways to communicate, ways that work.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: And a dog does not regard a human as a member of its pack. I don't try to dominate my dog (a very high drive pup). I merely direct and correct her when necessary. That may sound the same but it isn't. I want to communicate, not dominate.

***** In order for a dog to do what you want when you want it, you must either bribe him, dominate him (which means let him know that you are the dominant pack member, or do ONLY behavior with him that is self rewarding.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: Some years ago a study was done with monkeys.
snip
There was another study (I'm sorry, but I don't know the source of this one) in an orphanage.

***** Dog’s ain’t monkeys and dogs ain’t children. To use those models overlooks a ton of facts, among them that children aren’t pack animals and monkeys communicate among themselves very differently than do dogs. In fact they often communicate in ways that are completely opposite to the way that dogs do.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: And yes, I do think using food or toys is bribery.

***** I think it’s only bribery if it’s used to get behavior from the dog. If it’s just feeding time, it’s not bribery. If the toy is used as a destressor (I prefer food) it’s not bribery. If you use praise where a “cookie trainer” would use food, you’re just using another payoff for your bribe.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: I use properly applied stress (at least I hope so) and proper praise and correction (again, I hope so). I never force my pup to do anything.

***** Many people, and it looks like you’re one of them, don’t like the word, “force.” If you’re using corrections, you’re using force. You’re applying the principles of operant conditioning (OC) for force behavior that you want and to extinguish behavior that you don’t want.

Abby Braxton wrote: Do you play at all with your dog? A ball a frisbee? Because playing with my dog creates a bond. Training isn't the only place you communicate and create a relationship with your canine partner

***** Keep in mind that EVERYTHING you do with your dog is training. Not just when you think you’re training. The dog doesn’t know that “formal training” is any different than playtime. He’s always observing and learning.

Josh Lewis wrote: Like Lou, I only work PSDs.

***** HEY!!! I’m now training SAR dogs and pets as well. And let me remind you of an inside joke, “Don’t do crack!!!” (Sorry everyone, it’s too long to explain here. If you care ask Josh or I when you run into one of us.)

Josh Lewis wrote: For some dogs, the act of the hunt, location of a suspect, the work on its own is self-rewarding. The dare I say "drive" satisfies itself by acting on it in training or deployment.

***** The two most powerful tools in dog training are self–discovery and self–motivation.

Catherine Amodeo wrote: a dog will leave other dogs to be with man.

***** Not always. There are plenty of dogs that would rather play with dogs than with their human. I’ve used an Ecollar (what else, LOL) to teach dogs that they’d rather be with their human than with other dogs.

paul wootton wrote: if you are afraid or the dog is nervous of you lying down,there is a lack of both respect and understanding between dog and handler.

***** Paul bring up a good point here. Handlers who dominate through physical means (kicking the dog’s ass) are often afraid of their dogs. They’re afraid to give effective leash corrections, they’re afraid of reaching in to grab their dog’s leash during bitework, they’re afraid to take a toy away from their dog and they won’t pick up his bowl while he’s feeding.

OK Lou.. you got me...I do teach some seminars on Search and Rescue. I just look at it the same way I look at Patrol Dogs. The hunt, track, search and drives are the same(except bite driven combat drives). There just isn't the "bite" in the dog at the end. And I still stand by my "don't do crack" and my now famous LACPCA seminar comment.. question.. "What do you think about hidden sleeves?" My politically correct answer.. "they suck!"...LOL

In order for a dog to do what you want when you want it, you must either bribe him, dominate him (which means let him know that you are the dominant pack member, or do ONLY behavior with him that is self rewarding.

I don't believe thats true. Direction and correction are different than domination. Its not a matter of simple semantics. I believe communicating with your dog isn't the same as dominating your dog.

Dog’s ain’t monkeys and dogs ain’t children. To use those models overlooks a ton of facts, among them that children aren’t pack animals and monkeys communicate among themselves very differently than do dogs. In fact they often communicate in ways that are completely opposite to the way that dogs do.

I realize that dogs aren't monkeys or children. The point was that animals go more for comfort than food - a common denominator with mammals. Eventually they'll go for food yes, as all animals, including humans and monkeys, will do.

If you're using food at feeding time its not bribery? Aren't you trying to get a certain behavior from the dog? To get it to think of you as the alpha? Same with destressors - why is anything needed? Is that something the human is just projecting onto the dog - that the dog needs something to destress it?

I know that everything I do with my dog is training. Thats why I don't believe that if a pup is properly corrected for inappropriate behavior it will kill its drive to work. Its not that simple. If the bond is there, won't the dog love to work for you?

I'm just interested in looking at all angles.

Catherine says, "If the bond is there, won't the dog love to work for you?"

Catherine, I agree dogs are great, but you idealize them beyond what even a human can offer. Dogs for the most part are in it for themselves. The art of training is learning what motivates and brings out the best in each individual dog. And all these very experience trainers have demonstrated in their posts that they use any and all methods to do this. Have you ever heard the expression, "You'll be told on a need to know basis."? What is your need to know all these things? I know we're here to learn and ask pertinent questions. But it sounds to me that you have one dog whom you are learning to train. Like me, you're not in the same ballpark as these PSD trainers who have beem doing this for years. I love to read this stuff. It's interesting to read and learn. But I have one dog who I'll be very proud to put a CD on soon. That hardly qualifies me to argue with professional dog trainers about how to train in a specialized field like PSD. What I'm trying to say is that your questions are argumentative. They don't seem to come from a need to know anything that pertains to you and your dog. Why don't you try what Ed suggested, and kick back and enjoy the reading material. Get some videos and books that will help you with your own relationship with your own dog. Then maybe you'll have specific questions that will satisfy your true needs, instead of worrying about what every experienced, professional trainer is doing. I'm trying to explain this without being abrasive. If I have questions that will help me with my dog, (and guaranteed, I will), then I'll ask them. But not just for the sake of argument.

I really need to go to bed..but Sharon makes a great point. Dogs, especially working dogs do things for themselves. Dogs are one of the most self serving, do it for me animals we work with. They don't do things because they love you. They do it because there is something in it for them. Even worst case if it stops discomfort, it makes them happy it stopped. Do you honsetly think a patrol dog searches a building and fights a badguy because he loves his handler? Heck no..he enjoys the hunt, the search, and yes the fight. It has nothing to do w/ the handler except they drove the car and directed the dog where to go. Even handler protection has nothing to do w/ love. Perhaps..perhaps some pack drive should you believe in things in theses terms. It just may be the dog knows an attack on the handler is a go light to do what they enjoy doing, getting into a fight and combat. The act of engaging in the combat is self rewarding, thus the dog is doing it for himself and not for the handler. Dogs don't find bombs because they want to save the President, you, me, a school full of kids. Hell, I want NOTHING to do w/ bombs. If a dog had rational thought, I'm not sure they would volunteer for the job either. They are looking for their toy or food, or reward..not for bombs. They don't do it for the moral, ethical, civiliazed, do good attitude we have about the job. Hell you couldn't pay me enough to play w/ bombs and these fool dogs do it for a tennis ball or a few chunks of hotdog...but hey, it has nothing to do w/ rewards right..LOL. They do it because they love to save all us poor humans from blowing up..LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Lou, thanks for addressing my questions.

Sharon,

I'm not trying to be argumentative, although you could read some of the questions that way. As I'm sure some answers aren't defensive, as they might appear to me. And I am sitting back and enjoying reading this (more than you will EVER know). I've read volumes, got videos, etc., etc., etc., and as you say, am trying to learn. What do you mean, "what is my need to know all these things?" You have to start somewhere, don't you? I freely admit I'm a novice. What makes you think all this isn't helping me? I learn something from every single post, yours included. There are lessons in them all.

I'll tell you why I ask questions and this is not to malign anyone. I don't believe everything I read (and I'm not suggesting anyone here does), and I will question it. Especially if something just doesn't ring true to me. Doesn't matter if the majority of people are doing it.

I don't idealize dogs, but I am beginning to realize the potential of the human/K-9 bond. It truly saddens me to read things like "Dogs are one of the most self serving, do it for me animals we work with. They don't do things because they love you. They do it because there is something in it for them." or "They are looking for their toy or food, or reward." I won't elaborate because there would be no point.

I just search for the truth.

OK Catherine you say you are just asking questions and not argueing. Go back and read your posts. "I think..." "I feel..." "I believe..." and then arguing what you believe to be the truth based on what you have "heard" or "read" or "were told". The point we try and make to you is that the experiences related by people that have been involved in the evolution of training are based on that, experience. They have opinions based on actual training. I have been training for 20 years. I haven't done it profesionaly for a while, but I must take my hat off to the experience and willingness to share of many of the people posting on this board. I know many with this level of expertise wouldn't bother with us. The trainer I work with has been training for 27 years, has trained over 13,000 dogs, you want to argue with him? He made a point last night, "Trainers abilities are based on leash time". He won't participate in a forum like this, for just this reason.

If you want to ask a question, then ask the question. Listen to the answer. It is based on experience, not heresay. These people do this for a living, they have to be good at it. Ask questions for which the answer has some use for you in your current situation, take care of the basics before you try the advanced work. Walk before you run. Get at least a basic knowledge before you start throwing terms around (like Pavlovian vs Operant conditioning), that knowledge is required to ask an intelligent question.

Sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but get some "leash time" before you try to argue with the experts.

This is all quite interesting to me. You think I'm not listening or appreciating answers, then so be it. As I said, I learn something from every post. Yours included.

Catherine writes:It truly saddens me to read things ..

** Why would it sadden you? It is how dogs work. If you want to go on thinking your dogs love you and do things for this reason, go right ahead. With the examples I showed in my last post I would love to hear your take on why the dogs are then perform theses task. If they are not doing it for self reward and motivation, why are they doing it?

Catherine says, "If the bond is there, won't the dog love to work for you?"

Catherine,

You need to look up the word "anthropomorphism." Dogs don't love. Cathexis is more like what a dog does. Dogs have no concept of the word "work." Dogs have drives. They "work" to satisfy drives, period!!!

Now, don't anyone tell me that I don't love dogs. I do and have since I got my first German Shepherd at the age of three. The fact that dogs are not human is one of the greatest things about them.