Quote: susan tuck

Are you talking about 100% motivation vs 100% compulsion? If so, I would have to agree, training a dog based soley on compulsion would make whatever you wanted the dog to do drudgery for the dog, and would not present as good a picture.

If you are saying that 100% motivation is the only way to go for all dogs, or if you are saying that dogs for whom compulsion is part of their training do not enjoy the work, then I must disagree with you.

I think the problem is I don't know WHAT people are doing if they are not using a reward/motivational system. What I saw as a kid was punitive and harsh (probably not what people do here)- I have not seen 'compulsory' training as it seems to be discussed on this forum. So it depends on what people define as COMPULSORY TRAINING.

100% motivation simply does not work for all dogs. A recent fad in childrearing was 'praise the positive and ignore the negative.' The philosophy was everything the kid did was solely for attention. (yeah right!) So, the kids learned there was no consequences for their behavior. Some activities are self-rewarding, same way for a dog. I prefer to focus on positive reinforcement and motivational methods, but am not afraid to correct the dog if need be.

Since I am not sure what methods you label as 'compulsory' the picture in my head may be a bit different than yours.

Sorry Connie...

 Quote: Patty Macleod

Sorry Connie...

No, no ... not a problem. Now you know.

Julie, I think we are on the same page. I train using only motivational techniques with puppies and primarily motivational once they become young dogs. With compulsion I use the very minimum correction I can that the dog will understand and learn from, it must be effective once so it doesn't have to be done over & over, which becomes nagging. It's a balancing act, I'm sure you agree.

Patty,

A little caution here. I read his rant before you deleted it as well. I do agree with some of his training meathods, despite my earlier posts. There are many questions and ideas in this long thread. Not all of them have to do with this trainer or his show. Some of my replies were in response to those other issues. In response to the show..

If you reference my first in response to his show:

 Quote:

More on point I have seen many episodes of "At the end of my Leash"

I agree that many pet owners I know are impressed. However the show actually shows very little dog training. It is also about mending human relationships that are strained because of disobedient dogs.

He can get away with not using motivators like food and toys because he trains no complex behaviors. He is really showing people how to do dog groundwork and be a pack leader to their dogs. This does not require food and toys persay.

He is huge into teathering, and just being consistant. He teaches a sit by poping the leash and snapping his fingers.

I do not agree with his overall philosophy, but do think that many pet owners could learn a thing or two from him on the groundwork front and not treating your dog like a spoiled child.

That said there are many dangers to his show as well. He is big into forcing dogs to submit to him, (which could be very dangerous for the uneducated public). I have never seen him deal with a truely agressive or dominant dog on the many episodes I have seen.

He calls prong collars cruel. I think he is big into martingales.

To answer the question in the subject line. I will use all the tools available to me in my toolbox. I use food, toys, and praise as motivators and will continue to do so, regardless of the flavor of the month dog trainer on TV in Canada at present.

An example:

I have an aquaintance that has a Beagle. Little spoiled brat, counter surfing, treat soliciting, couch growling, barking to get what it wants...etc.

If this aquintance wished to correct some of this behavior (she doesn't see it as a problem), I would actually employ SIMILAR methods to those used by Brad.

This dog requires pack structure and groundwork. This dog does not need to be taught any complex behaviors, just how to be a good family pet and not the top dog of the house. I would tell her to chuck all her treats, toys, dog beds, fancy harnesses in the garbage just as Brad would.

I would not teach the dog to get off the couch or counter by bribing it off with a treat.

These are the types of dogs that he is dealing with in the shows that I have seen. His type of training does have a place and is not far off from what many other popular trainers would suggest for dogs with these issues. What Brad is doing is his own version of groundwork for an adult dog. There value to this in my opinion.



Treats, toys AND EVEN PRAISE can be misused. So can compultion. Though I beleive in using toys and food as motivators for some things, I do not believe in it for ALL things and ALL situations. My bone to pick with him is that he says that they should NEVER be used. As well as some of the other details of his methods. But as I said there is some value in what he preaches.

If you want to go to the seminar and find out more about his methods go ahead. You don't have to accept everyting he says word for word. He may have some worthwile tips. He may not.

There are lots of different discussions hidden in this long thread. I wanted to make sure that you understand that I do not beleive that using treats and toys is always the answer to every problem.

I hope that readers didn't get the impression that food was the answer to behavior issues. Good points, Jennifer!

 Quote: susan tuck

.... I train using only motivational techniques with puppies and primarily motivational once they become young dogs. With compulsion I use the very minimum correction I can that the dog will understand and learn from, it must be effective once so it doesn't have to be done over & over, which becomes nagging. It's a balancing act, I'm sure you agree.

A nice explanation from Sue of what might be the POV of some posters (well, me, anyway.... ) on the thread.

No I totally agree that treats shouldn't always be used and likewise praise. I have Ed's dominant dog video and the part where he's teaching the female shepherd that's trying to get at the dog on the other side of the fence that it's not the thing to do. He gives a her a good correction and she figures out pretty quick that it's not a good idea. From what I can remember in that clip, there's no praise after she stops.

I use the same idea for Bayley, if she's on the bed with me, invited of course, and the cats come up and she growls at them, well then she gets told off or out and she's banished to the floor. She's getting better with that one, although cats being cats..I think they do it on purpose!

 Quote: rick miller

 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.

Ahh all these quote in quotes in quotes! So hard to keep up with!!

I would have to disagree that even though the dog is being primed for its work that the work the dog gives would not be a good representation in these cases. Let's say for arguments sake that Mike's example of the "weak border collie" with the good trainer is not part of the equation. The trainer of the dog working in anticipation for its toy would still be showing its work ability in the trial. Don't forget that dogs are animals! As human beings able to rationalize and capable of reason we manipulate our environment and the things in them to produce results which we (the humans) are looking for. "Priming" a dog before a competition, particularly a competition for breeding, should almost be essential, if you ask me. This is the only way you truly be able to see the work ability of the dog on the field in its fullest potential. To take it further, when the animal actual is called upon to work in the real world (keeping in mind what Schutzhund was developed to test for) the dog will, in most cases, get very reved up when confronted by an assailant. So, Schutzhund being what it is I would be more apt to award higher scores to dogs performing while high in drive rather than without a "warm up".