But this was wandering afield from using food in the teaching phase.

Sorry.

 Quote:

But the point is you can't do these things. You can't have a decoy during the OB phase.

I think you are missing the point Rick. It is about repetition. If a dog performs the same task while in the same drive enough times, then it becomes a habit. If I tell my dog "let op", he will look around and start barking, because in the past when I have given him that command there has been someone there to threaten him. I haven't done any bitework with Cujo since May 2007, if I tell him "let op" he still does it. The behavior has "stuck". The command is "bark" and the drive is "defense". The command changes his drive from "sleeping on the sofa" to "defense" because he is used to performing that command in that drive, similar to how a dog can go into drive when you tell them "heel".

I would still like to know though, if one were to use only praise, and no compulsion, then how does one proof the dogs obedience when they disobey? The dog WILL disobey one day, all dogs do, no dog is perfect.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to corrections or some level of compulsion. But, if the dog thinks its a game all his life, and he performs the command flawlessly each and every time, then does it really matter? Some of the best police dogs I've ever worked with think that biting the bad guy on the street is a "game", they just take their game very seriously. They are not defensive at all, but they are incredibly dominant and very serious about biting.

When it comes to sport training, using Schutzhund scoring as a guideline for breeding is stupid. This isn't neccesarily because of the dogs or the trainers, but the judges. You can learn alot from a dog by watching their Schutzhund routine, but in order to do so you need to know what you are looking at, and not going on what score the judge gives. There are some great dogs that score badly because the handlers suck. The trouble is that judges are also required to follow the letter of the rules. It isn't that difficult to get a dog to perform a routine according to the letter of the rules. The judge isn't allowed to interpret a dogs behavior, he has to judge the physical act he is presented with. So lets say a dog is weak, but the trainer taught the dog to do a bark & hold. Look at the requirements of the bark & hold in the rules, the dog must run a few blinds, sit in front of the helper, bark at the helper and not bite him. I can get a weak border collie to do this. The judge has to score the dog based on the fact that he is sitting in front of the helper and barking, he cannot score the dog based on his opinion or assessment that the dog is weak, because that is an individual interpretation that many judges simply are not qualified to make, and many handlers who may not realize their dog sucks will get mad about. The most the judge can do is deduct points for a dog that bites the decoy, touches the decoy, misses a blind, doesn't look inside the empty blind when he circles it etc. All these things can be trained for by a competent trainer, even if the dog is not a strong dog.

At the end of the day it is just a sport, whether the dog believes he is getting a ball at the end of it is entirely irrelivent. I wouldn't compare it to eye gouging in football, but I would sooner compare it to a basketball player wearing better shoes, or being offered alot of money to play their best game, or a wife who ... er... ok maybe not appropriate for this forum Is it unethical for a basketball player to know that he will get paid alot for playing his best game?

 Quote: connie sutherland

 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?

I shouldn't have hit "reply" to Rick's post; I wasn't replying to Rick. I was referring to the previous post by I don't remember who, who was talking about compulsion and actions that did not (IMO) constitute compulsion. I wasn't sure if that was what she was saying or not here:

 Quote:

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.

 Quote: Mike J Schoonbrood

At the end of the day it is just a sport, whether the dog believes he is getting a ball at the end of it is entirely irrelivent. I wouldn't compare it to eye gouging in football, but I would sooner compare it to a basketball player wearing better shoes, or being offered alot of money to play their best game, or a wife who ... er... ok maybe not appropriate for this forum Is it unethical for a basketball player to know that he will get paid alot for playing his best game?

Depends, do the rules say the player is allowed to recieve money?

A good score begets more money from a breeding as opposed to a dog with bad scores.

 Quote: Rick Miller

 Quote: Mike J Schoonbrood

At the end of the day it is just a sport, whether the dog believes he is getting a ball at the end of it is entirely irrelivent. I wouldn't compare it to eye gouging in football, but I would sooner compare it to a basketball player wearing better shoes, or being offered alot of money to play their best game, or a wife who ... er... ok maybe not appropriate for this forum Is it unethical for a basketball player to know that he will get paid alot for playing his best game?

Depends, do the rules say the player is allowed to recieve money?

Now you're just nitpicking.

I wouldn't consider what Rick does with his dog as compulsion. He sounds fortunate enough to have a dog that desperately wants to understand what his human wants him to do
Compulsion to me is the old 'crank and yank' method of telling the dog to sit, then repeatedly whacking it until it sits. Or otherwise forcing the dog in an unpleasant manner to perform duties - the dog ends up doing things to avoid punishment, not out of desire to work/please/whatever. Training should be enjoyable to the dog so it WANTS to learn and learns to ENJOY the job.
I know virtually nothing about Schutzhund...what is the philosophy there? Does the discipline you practice with your dog have any bearing on your training philosophy?

I see compulsion as simply a form of correction and training, it can be done with finesse or it can be done with a heavy hand. It compels the dog to know it must. I use compulsion training along with many other things - it's a tool in the tool chest.

Force training is something else. I think the owners of this website do not approve of any form of force training, so I do not want to take that discussion further on this board. Suffice it to say if done wrong or to the wrong dog it can mess up the dog pretty much forever.

 Quote: julie wilson

I wouldn't consider what Rick does with his dog as compulsion. He sounds fortunate enough to have a dog that desperately wants to understand what his human wants him to do
Compulsion to me is the old 'crank and yank' method of telling the dog to sit, then repeatedly whacking it until it sits. Or otherwise forcing the dog in an unpleasant manner to perform duties - the dog ends up doing things to avoid punishment, not out of desire to work/please/whatever.

I feel pretty sure that no one said that was compulsion.

That definition of compulsion ("repeatedly whacking it until it sits") might offend someone whose compulsion is using a prong when proofing under distraction, as was mentioned earlier.

There's compulsion and there's compulsion.

Something a poster here said in an email, and very true (particularly with regard to this thread) is that assuming someone who does not use food in training is beating up his/her dog goes the other way, too: assuming that trainers who do use food must use a ball or a treat for everything is just as misguided.

 Quote: susan tuck

I see compulsion as simply a form of correction and training ....

That, in the dog training world, is a better definition of compulsion. The broad term includes a leash pop. Yes, it would include "telling the dog to sit, then repeatedly whacking it until it sits," but that's not a good working definition, IMHO.