so they do mix together....i think that's what was confusing me (this seems to be both! ack!).

when you hold a treat still to reinforce staying in a position (aka, hold the sit for X amount of time) - is that still functioning as a lure, or are you bribing the dog to hold for the treat? or am i getting lost in semantics?

When Bayley was learning her agility equipment, to get her to step on a new piece of equipment, we'd lure her on it with the treat, then the second she touched it, we'd mark it and give her the treat. so I think you need to use a combination of luring and bribing. I don't know how you would do it without using treat, she was pretty nervous of the seesaw and with the no treat method, I would think you would have to pretty much drag the dog onto it. She's not a small dog and I would think that would be more traumatic then using treats and marking the small steps until she was standing on it. She still doesn't really like it but she will stand on it now and praise works just fine now.

 Quote: Jennifer Mullen

when you hold a treat still to reinforce staying in a position (aka, hold the sit for X amount of time) - is that still functioning as a lure, or are you bribing the dog to hold for the treat? or am i getting lost in semantics?

Yes to all of the above!

LOL!!!!!

patty, i can see some stuff would be really hard to teach without a treat or a toy. the closest thing i'm looking at to that is that luc is scared of the water, and he's improved (i no longer have to carry him) but my big plan is to take him to the pool w/teagan, who goes for her hips, b/c he follows her. when she's confident, you can see him go 'oh! this isn't a big deal!'. which may be why he works well with praise too....luc doesn't get a lot of stuff about being a dog and he had to learn behaviour in the outside world, so he models his behaviour a lot, and i would wonder if that's why he's more receptive to praise than treats, b/c he's not only learning a command, he's learning how to be in the outside world, and that's something that goes past just sitting or whatever. who knows, i guess....

 Quote: mike j schoonbrood

 Quote: rick miller

The point I am trying to make is, how would this dog perform if it full well knew the ball was not going to come after the routine? Probably worse...

It depends on the dog and the trainer really. In a competitive sport, every point counts. If showing the dog a ball before trial earns 1 extra point, that is the point that could be the difference between high in trial, and 2nd place. The level of obedience expected from sport trainers is considerably higher than the level neccesary for a "normal" dog on a day to day basis. A dog getting into position a little tighter and quicker affects total score. Perhaps the dog would be absolutely fine without seeing a ball, but that extra kick brings that "good" OB up a notch closer to perfection.

This is my point. The score is thus not a true representation of the working ability of the dog. It is how well the dog performs while in anticipation of earning itself a toy or treat.

For example, I can take my dog out for a person who doesn't know much about dog training, and do some marker training or drive building with Bella that will knock their socks off. They will tell me I have the most obedient dog in the world.

But if I try the same stuff without those "tricks," she is not going to look near as good. So, even if I show her when she is "in drive" for the food or the toy, I know in my heart that this is not a true representation of her working ability because without that "extra motivation," she would likely become interested in other things, unless we were in a very sterile environment.

So, to me, her actual working ability is not only how fast she sits and how well she stays, but how she does this under distraction. I know I can get her to turn focus on me when under distraction if I have a treat or toy. (Or she thinks I do!) But I think an honest evaluation of her working ability would have to be sans "tricks and treats."

OK, I know we shouldn't use examples of people to talk about dogs, but I'm gonna anyway. To me it seems more like if you have an athlete, say a football player. They are well trained and know the sport, but to really play at thier best they use various methods to "psyche" thier selves up mentaly, to get thier mind set ready to play thier best. Does this mean what we are seeing isn't thier true ability? Granted if they didn't do this they could still play, but not with the same skill level and intensity.

If you can get your dog "psyched up" to do what you ask of him/her at his/her best, why wouldn't this be true ability? I think our true abilities are more likely to come out if we are in the right mindset and motivated, and I think it follows through with dogs.

However, I am not an experienced dog trainer, these are just observations.

Rick have you seen or participated in schutzhund trials? The difference is infinitesimal. The only people who are going to see the difference are those who are knowledgeable in the sport AND we all know about little tricks, so everyone is essentially on an even playing field. If you extrapolate your example then no one should start out training with a collar and lead because you can't use those things in a trial. Collars and leads are no more invalid "tricks" than food/ball/tug etc..

One more thing, the perfect sit, position, retrieve, etc., are not what we use to judge whether or not a dog has the correct drives, these things are what we use to judge the sport.

Wow, what timing:

http://www.leerburg.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=178483#Post178483

 Quote: Ed Frawley

When I started dog training in the dark ages of the 1960’s very few people trained with food. Training has come light years since then. This podcast – soon to be a streaming video will help explain why.

I learned without the use of tangible rewards, unfortunately. Well into the late 80s, in fact, I think, there were huge numbers of professional trainers who were against the use of food (period, in all training) in their work.

And of course, there are still trainers who adhere to that credo. I do have to wonder why.... having done both ....

 Quote: Shody Lytle

I think our true abilities are more likely to come out if we are in the right mindset and motivated, and I think it follows through with dogs.

I do too.

And back to:

 Quote: susan tuck

Rick have you seen or participated in schutzhund trials? The difference is infinitesimal. The only people who are going to see the difference are those who are knowledgeable in the sport AND we all know about little tricks, so everyone is essentially on an even playing field. If you extrapolate your example then no one should start out training with a collar and lead because you can't use those things in a trial. Collars and leads are no more invalid "tricks" than food/ball/tug etc..

One more thing, the perfect sit, position, retrieve, etc., are not what we use to judge whether or not a dog has the correct drives, these things are what we use to judge the sport.

Sorry for my slight straying.....