Same here, I discovered alot watching agility dogs. Alot of the people used the tug reward as soon as the dog finishes his run and before going in to get the dog, I guess into drive. I don't know treat training works really well for me.

 Quote: mike j schoonbrood

Motivational training done properly will put the dog into drive when the command is issued. Part of this is the temperament of the dog, but it is a conditioning thing. The dog believes a reward is coming, so when the dog hears the command, he will go into drive in anticipation of the reward. If the reward has been weaned properly, then the dog will not need a reward each time he performs the command, it would be intermittent. So maybe he gets a ball tomorrow, or in 5 minutes, or next weekend. The key to all training is maintaining the training. A dog is never "fully trained", the dog needs to continue maintaining his skill.

The dog is performing commands for the (eventual) treat or ball, which comes back to what is motivating the dog. Prey drive you will say, or food drive.

The dog thinks it is playing a game...which is fun, and sends the dog into a higher level of drive. So, to the people competing, is Schutzhund just a question of who can play the game better, and who's dog likes the game (or prey) more?

 Quote: mike j schoonbrood

This goes for both compulsion and motivational training, but I believe a compulsion trained dog needs more maintanence than a motivationally trained dog. The compulsion trained dog figures out eventually that you cannot correct him 100% of the time, so he will keep worsening until you "set him straigt" in your next formal training session. With motivational training, it is not a case of "well I can get away with not doing it", but it becomes a case of "if I dont do it, I dont get what I want". The battle with a motivationally trained dog is that if the dog finds something on his own that he is more motivated by than what you are offering, and learns he can get what he wants (for example, seeing a rabbit, and deciding to chase the bunny instead of wait for you to give him a piece of cheese), then that will be your challenge to overcome. This is where most people will opt to use corrections to proof the motivational training. However, because the foundation is still set motivationally, I think that the corrections will have alot more meaning when the dog sees a clear black & white of cookie vs. correction. It becomes a clear cut choice, the dog will always opt for the option that is most beneficial to him.

I don't see anyone here arguing for compulsion based training. But maybe I am misunderstanding what compulsion is. When I taught Bella to go up the stairs on the jungle gym, for example, I just sat her at the bottom of the stairs, walked up and said "up the stars!" She did nothing. I then said "Bella?!" Nothing. "Up the stairs!" I then cued her to come to me with a pat on my lap and she immediatly came to me. I praised and repeated with the same non-verbal cue a few times, and then about 4-5 tries into it, I just said, "Bella, up the stairs." She did nothing...then she started whining, and looking stressed for a few seconds...then she put one food on the stairway, and I said "Yes!" She came up the stairs and I praised. Is this compulsion?

(As an aside, when I taught Bella "down the slide," she was very skeptical. I watched her think about it for about 7-10 seconds before she finally tried it. But now, it is her favorite part of being on the jungle gym! She doesn't just come down the slide, she flys down! Pretty funny to watch...would you call this slide drive? )

 Quote: mike j schoonbrood

Take Lyka for example. Her obedience with a ball is fine, but if you want to see an alert and attentive dog, stick a decoy on the field and have him walk around while I'm doing OB.

 Quote: susan tuck

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..

But the point is you can't do these things. You can't have a decoy during the OB phase. I am sure if someone found a way for the dog to think it was still on leash, you would use that trick, too, but again, is this a wholesome practice considering:

 Quote:

The orginial purpose for the sport of Schutzhund was to develop a dog sport that could measure the working ability of the dog so that information could be used in a breeding program to develop better working dogs with good temperaments.

( From this article )

For example, if I am playing football, and I end up in the bottom of a pile of guys trying to recover the ball, I can easily punch another guy in the crotch, pull their hair, gouge their eyes out. Is it legal to do these things in football?. No. Can I get away with it? Absolutely. Is it ethical? No.

If we use shutzhund as a measuring bar for breeding partners, I think it is crutial to make sure the measurements are accurate with respect to the working ability of the dog. I understand you all say that it doesn't make that much of a difference, but the fact that so many people advocate it speaks volumes to me.

P.S. Mike, I am sorry if you forgot what football is over there!

I think 'compulsion based training' works for some things. I don't always treat for example with going through doors. If she rushes the door, I close it. if she gets her head bonked by the door she'll think again before rushing the door. On the other hand if I'm teaching her something like a teeter totter, I'd rather use treats than trying to drag her over a piece of equipment that makes her nervous.

I wouldn't (and didn't) drag Bella over anything! I never gave her a correction or any kind of physical manuvering. I just encouraged her, and when she did what I wanted, I marked "Yes!" and praised. How is that compulsion?

Hmm, I don't know. Did you tell her the floggings will continue until morale improves?

That's not compulsion. Not treating in itself is not compulsion; it's a common association though, between no treats and heavy compulsion. I have had several, um, heated debates, over this very topic. When I say I don't use treats in OB, it is automatically assumed that I must use heavy compulsion. Um, no. I am not going to go into how I actually do it, for fear of confirming the suspicions that I am, indeed, certifiably nuts, but IMHO, what you are doing is SHOWING, not FORCING. Big difference. However, there many trainers out there who know only two ways-bribery and beatings. This is why people think if you don't do one, you must do the other.

Some dogs trust you well enough to do this w/out bribery or lures, and those usually are the kind who are ok w/just praise for a job well-done. Then there are the kind who are not comfortable in a set environment and treats are a godsend in terms of distracting the dog from panic. I don't have the patience for that kind of dog, and I commend rescuers for their devotion and time spent helping these dogs. I won't judge anyone who does something I don't for their methods.

I also don't do competitive sports w/my dogs, and could give a rat's behind if my dog slams his butt on the ground fast enough to break bones. It's all what your goals are, what kind of dog you have, and the bond you have. I have one who isn't nearly as bonded to me as the others (a rescue). She works much better for treats, but doesn't require them. My others honestly don't do anything any better for treats. They just aren't that into them, and actually enjoy some of the ridiculous "circus tricks" I "force" them to perform.

This age-old question cannot really be answered simply; there are way too many variables in the equation.

 Quote: maisha butler

... if you want your dog to obey, even when there are distractions, and absent of treats, how do you accomplish that?

I'd like to read a discussion of proofing under distraction without tangible rewards or compulsion (I didn't say "heavy compulsion," whatever that dividing line might be).

 Quote: connie sutherland

I didn't say "heavy compulsion," whatever that dividing line might be).

Just to be clear, I used the term, but I was speaking generally, not specifically to anyone in this thread. It is a common assumption that if someone doesn't have a clicker in one hand and a hot dog in another that they must really be physically tough on the dog. I am certainly not, and I was just making that point.

I would say it is much tougher to proof under heavy distraction, but on the flip side, a dog who is not used to working for him/herself is going to be harder to distract, at least in my experience. I have seen amazing focus in 6mo old pups who have never, ever had a treat, and have been corrected, but not in a physical way.

OK, then, accepted.

How is proofing under distraction done without compulsion?

 Quote: Connie Sutherland

OK, then, accepted.

How is proofing under distraction done without compulsion?

Dunno. By the time I'm proofing (REALLY proofing) I will use compulsion, ie, prong correction. But with young dogs, I just keep putting them back into whatever position it is I'm working toward, and in just a few minutes, usually, they get the point that running off doing whatever THEY want to do isn't going to happen, until they do what I asked. So, if you want to split hairs, I guess free time is a reward.

I do not think that the absence of a treat constitues compulsion, and that was my main point, albeit muddled, lol.

 Quote: jenni williams

 Quote: connie sutherland

OK, then, accepted.

How is proofing under distraction done without compulsion?

Dunno. By the time I'm proofing (REALLY proofing) I will use compulsion, ie, prong correction. ..... I do not think that the absence of a treat constitues compulsion, and that was my main point, albeit muddled, lol.

No, of course not. Agreed. But what you're saying doesn't seem to be the same as:

 Quote: rick miller

...I never gave her a correction or any kind of physical manuvering. I just encouraged her, and when she did what I wanted, I marked "Yes!" and praised. How is that compulsion?