I think it was David Dikeman's COMMAND PERFORMANCE. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
I used some of his methods with good success. Others I didn't like. Like any training tool use some or all of it, just understand the method before using it.

David Moris said:
"I don’t think carrying treats in your mouth or a toy under your chin is bad training. If this is what gets your dog loaded and puts the dog into the desired drive then great. A dog working in this kind of drive has given you its full and undivided attention and anything you can teach the dog in this frame of mind is going to come more near sinking in and sticking with it."

I agree that we want to get the dog to give us undivided attention. But where is the attention for many dogs using baited rewards? It is on the reward that is in his view or he is tricked to look like he is focused on us because he looks up at our slightly stained and salty hotdog lips.

Yes both methods closely resemble focus on the handler but in many cases it is a dog constantly looking for his rewardand not focusing on his job.

If the dog achieves true focus and stains eye contact by this method you are lucky because you are not training eye contact. But is does mean your dog actually likes you and looks for you to reward him.

I will not place despairing words to any who want to teach a dog to work with positive motivators. I guess what I am suggesting is that there is a better way to motivate and you can actually obtain the goal of handler focus in drive without “tricking the dog to act like he is focusing.”

It is a subtle difference but one that should be addressed. I understand it is a change in the philosophical practice. But if we take the time to consider why we want the dog to focus on us can we then disagree with a technique that brings us closer to that objective?

We want the dog to focus on us so our dog will not miss our training signals. Turns, halts, about turns and the cadence of pace for example are more easily seen when the dog is looking at us.

Since we want keep our dog working in drive and the approximating of a reward allows the dog to catch these signals the traditional methods of holding a “gifty” reward or spitting tasty food seems to accomplish this objective in a round about way.

Few can honestly say that this method does not present any problem for the handler. With dogs walking sideways, crowding, sitting crooked at halts, brailing and the list goes on. So then we need to un-train a once accepted behavior like crowding around the handler to view the gifty reward.

Also how often have we seen folks who have built a high drive dog only to later use compulsion because a trial is coming? Many hope they can bring their dog up to standards while the dog is forced to react to the handlers stimulation be it motivation or compulsion and often with disastrous results.

The standard method has mixed results for many, because the variance of training proficiency is mixed. Not to mention all the inconsistent and mixed signals we send to our dog that erodes his general trust in us. Perhaps we have over look these factors because dogs are so adaptive and many, after a time in training, will come out of this gauntlet of training fine. Yet why do all this when it is not needed

I feel the key to getting true focus is not in approximating a reward toward the objective but rather teach the dog the objective handler focus.

I would like to introduce a new concept in obedience training where the dog initiates the signal to achieve his reward as I think it is closer to our training objective. Because of the generally accepted methods of training attention and focus many handlers have fallen victim to there own training devises and overcomplicate training because they need to either wean the presented reward off the dog or use compulsion to “sharpen” him up before trial. The idea of build drive and then correcting the dog so to sharpen him up and then rebuilding the drive is confusing has many palaces where critical training errors can happen.

How often have we seen folks who have a high drive dog work and work on drive building only to later use compulsion because a trial is coming? Many hope they can bring their dog up to standards while the dog is forced to react to the handlers stimulation be it motivation or compulsion.

This method has mixed results because the variance of training proficiency is mixed as well as the mixed signals we send to our dogs. But because dogs are so adaptive, many will come out of this gauntlet of training fine the end. Yet why do all this when it is not needed

I have done a lot of thinking about attention and focus and came to this conclusion: If it is better to have a dog sustain drive throughout any obedience routine it should also be important to have a way the dog can stimulate the handler into rewarding him for his work It is a true teamwork and companionship technique.

It is not so far off in leftfield if you think about how we teach a dog to suppresses his bite on a sleeve in the blind yet he is also taught he can press the helper with sustained barking. A good helper rewards the dog at the top of his drive and on the bark. The dog thinks his action caused the reward.

Similarly, a dog can be taught to walks in heel and “pressing” eye contact to stimulate his handler for the reward. He can even be taught to maintain eye contact even though the reward is in plain sight or not. In fact this is one of the eye contact proofing requirements.

Since he know the only way he will get the reward is to remain ‘clean” to the eye contact behavior. As the dog learns how to get his reward by offering eye contact he naturally loads up in drive. He will be able to remain in correct position without suppressing the drive because the positive reward potential remains continuous. It is continues because the only valve the dog has to obtain the reward is correct action fallowed by eye contact. His eye contact is like him asking to get paid.

You soon set down a varied reward schedule paired with a general release command for contact reward by "pat and play" and you are on your way to a very enjoyable and focused relationship.

I would post the whole technique but I am not certain if it is allowed.

My whole basic obedience program that sets the foundation blocks would look like this:

Reward Marker and Molding Eye Contact
Eye Contact
Eye Focus
Collar and Leash familiarization
No Leash Pulling & Handler Attention Skills
Informal Motivational Recall
"SIT"
"SIT--STAY"
"Resistance Sit"
"Climb"
"Climb to Heel Position"
"DOWN"
"DOWN--STAY"
"Resistance Down"

Thanks David <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dennis I dont see the real difference in what you are saying ,and I read it 3 times. Im not talking about a constant reward coming from the face every few seconds.Im also not talking about keeping a dogs attention on my face and let his heeling position and sits go to crap.Im saying it all has to be done together.Teaching a dog to focus on the face for extended periods of time will eventually lead to a reward sounds like the same thing you said.Corrections are also involved at the same time, a dog can absorb the correction and learn from it and keep on going if in drive.
To me if teaching a dog if it stares at my face long enough a reward will eventually come from there(because its not going to come from anywhere else) .Can you explain how this is dfferent from the dog manipulating the situation and getting his reward.

David Morris - "Teaching a dog to focus on the face for extended periods of time will eventually lead to a reward sounds like the same thing you said."

It is a subtly apparent but distinct difference. A dog looking up at the face is thinking about the reward but the act of looking up does not have a deeper communicative meaning to the dog. While direct eye contact does have a deeper meaning to the dog. Eye contact is more then a way to eventually get a reward because real communication will take place between you and him. This communication will also increase his reliability and response time to a command and improve your overall timing even if only by 1second. This one-second is, as you know, a dear increment in time when you are talking about training. Once again a pleasure David. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

OK Dennis Im interested and would really like to understand what your saying.I know that I can get a dog that wont take treats to watch me with a left turn when it quits looking.It starts looking because it wants to know when Im going to pull that again.I guess Im asking what question are you putting in the dogs mind that it can find the answer by staring in your eyes?What is the dog fullfilling by the eye contact,and what are you able to give back to the dog with the eye contact.You did say this is true team work.when the dog is watching and anticipating no reward.

Actually the dog is looking for the reward or more correctly asking for it with his eye contact. He does anticipate at some point you will give him reward as long as he keeps his focus. In training you should continue to reward him throughout his exercises. Certainly you can make a sharp 90 degree turn into the dog when he looks the other way…you still can.

What we gain from eye contact over a simple looking up and looking happy is a better opportunity to read the dog. His “correctness” is more apparent and exact. We know our eye contact as an owner or trusted handler weighs in on our influence and control. This translates into a reduced need to physically compel major heeling infractions such as looking away because they will not happen as often.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I appreciate your time Dennis but I think we are talking about the same thing.I always stare into the eyes when working on focus and from what I can understand thats what you are saying too.The emphasis being on gazing into the eyes.Alot of people dont understand the value of watching their dogs intensely while OB training.If you dont watch intensely you can not expect your dog to be watching intensely.

Wow, I love reading posts that are short on content, but are long on BS. :rolleyes: <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Dennis Hasley has turned teaching eye contact into a 900 word essay, but has still left out a few VERY IMPORTANT POINTS.

Hasley wrote: "I would like to introduce a new concept in obedience training where the dog initiates the signal to achieve his reward as I think it is closer to our training objective."

What -F-ing planet are you from? What the hell makes this a new concept in obedience training?

Very simple concept, your posts sound like someone who makes their money by attempting to add a level of mystical meaning to their training. Dogs can see into your eyes and a level of communication occurs that is lightyears beyond normal training methods. You can be one with your dog. . .just the two of you sailing together in a perfect heel through the cosmos.

I have a question about "your method" that shoud cut to the chase. . .you know. . .for us lesser dog trainers who inhabit the planet earth.

What reward do you use to teach eye contact? How about explaining the method you use to teach that using 50 words or less? Or heck, if you want to just explain how you train a dog to heel, start to finish, then use 100 words.

Hasley wrote: "Yes both methods closely resemble focus on the handler but in many cases it is a dog constantly looking for his reward and not focusing on his job."

Certainly I agree with you that simulating focus and eye contact by using the dog's focus on his specific reward isn't a good idea. The dog should look into your eyes, maintain eye contact and "focus". . .then you give him the reward. He has learned that eye contact and focus is what earns reward, not stairing at the ball under your chin. (i.e. not focusing on the handler, but the reward) It does avoid a lot of problems in heeling, and is more correct. The dog should be focusing on the handler.

Simple concept, not new. Why not just post how to do something specifically? Teach dog to look eye, by rewarding dog for looking eye, increase time dog need look eye to earn reward. . .dog now looking eye and focusing on handler. . .not looking at ball reward. Eliminates lots of problems in heeling, cuz dog look eye. . .no lag- can't see eye, no look away to distraction- can't see eye. . .etc

Caveman speach is pretty impresive when it illustrates very simply what you are saying.

lol..

Sorry Robert, nothing mystical, new age or anything else. Hell I am just a simple farm boy who sees "experts" with dogs walking sideways looking for their reward. When you say looks why not do it like this you know what they say? “ -- “-- short on content, but are long on BS”

Not wanting to hike in your den but how many trainers out there teach eye contact as a way to obtain the reward and not simply present the reward to keep the dog looking and working?

And though there is a lashing for a 900 word essay it is only BS if you say so.

I am just a Iowa farm boy who thinks there is something useful in exposing a problem. While I have no doubt based on your 1753 post you have something to say. In the end you gravitate to my line of thinking.

Robert VanCamp: “Certainly I agree with you that simulating focus and eye contact by using the dog's focus on his specific reward isn't a good idea. The dog should look into your eyes, maintain eye contact and "focus". . .then you give him the reward. He has learned that eye contact and focus is what earns reward, not staring at the ball under your chin. (i.e. not focusing on the handler, but the reward) It does avoid a lot of problems in heeling, and is more correct. The dog should be focusing on the handler.”

My posting is meant to be useful and I hope helpful to new comers who are subjected to a plethora of information. An explanation in detail is required for beginners and many don’t mind reading I think.

If I used caveman speech to explain as you have eloquently outlined for many they would say, “Why?” or “Isn’t this the same thing.”

I could simply say, “No.” “Leaving those who want to learn in the dark, uninformed and misguided because some guys from XYZ organization says hold your ball high tease him up and now start walking.”

From coast to coast it happens and I think you know it.

Call this training because the dog walks in drive looking up if you want. Since your experience has already taught you the lessons so many beginners miss, I will not be offended by your simplifying remarks and I hope we can enjoy bouncing ideas between us from time to time working toward the mutual benefits offered in this forum.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree with Robert.
Its simple. Don't reward the ball or food till the dog is focusing into your eyes.
Eventually you will be increasing the focus time before rewarding and eventually you will be hiding the reward, so the dog does not know when he will be rewarded.
But you still need to have the reward somewhere on your person so you can give it to the dog immediately after the well done excersize. At least during training.
I am no expert at this, but I certainly can understand that concept in 100 words or less.
Erin