oh, forgot and was too late to edit: on the recall - informal is "c'mon" or "let's go" and he'll usually turn and follow. it just means "get and/or stay closer to me". "Here" was taught like on Ed's video - for food and fun as a puppy, then progressing to a long line and eventually e-collar. It's also the command i use on the protection field after the sleeve is slipped, etc., but i'm not expecting him to come to front.

So you can have an "informal" (or at least non-competition) recall command that means "or else."

Chris, I want to say thank you as well for your very informative and easy to understand posts. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

One tiny question, though. Would teaching the dog to obey the husband's few informal commands cause the dog to obey informal commands coming from other people as well?

in the beginning, probably.

but, in my opinion, i don't believe it's something that you need to worry about until the dog is a little older and is ready for more advanced training. by that time, hopefully he'd be far enough along in his knowledge and relationship(s) that throwing that little curve ball at him wouldn't be too much to handle.

He should be able to figure out that around the house or out on a walk, whatever, that he can (and should) listen to your husband as well.

However - if you're around, your commands would always override his.

Personally, i haven't taken the time to proof my dog against only responding to my commands (other than to make sure he knows a recall commmand on the field while he's over in the long down is NOT intended for him), but it's not that hard to do.

P.S. - Kristen, I just (re)read that you're planning on using your dog for P.P. - my experience is with SchH/Pet only, so someone else with experience with true protection training may have a different/better answer about only listening to commands from you...sorry.

Sorry to jump in rather late in the conversation, the points made about informal commands are very good; dogs tend to contextualize their learning (this is why it’s important to proof in a wide variety of situations). So for a working dog that will also live with the family it's important to separate strict obedience commands and informal ones. I think it's important to look at your goals for the dog. If you are training a top sport dog then Ed is right you need to minimize interaction with other people, but also keep in mind that people hire professional handlers all the time. So, you can have a successful dog that was trained and handled by more than one person. The whole point of doing this is to enjoy yourself and if having you fiancé involved in the training will add to your enjoyment then he should be involved. The big thing here is consistence between the handlers; you both have to be on the same page as far as training goes. This may be easier said than done as finding two dog trainers that agree with each other is.... um difficult.

Kristen,
For a PPD I think it’s important that both you and your husband are fully in control of the dog at all times. I think it's a good thing for both of you to be involved in the training, during proofing you can train command rejection to ensure that no one else can take control of the dog.

Thank you all for the very informative posts. You are all giving me lots to consider! I know I'll have to do plenty of research on this to ensure it works out well for all involved parties (dog included). In any case, my fiance said that once the first dog gets out of puppyhood, I can get another one, strictly my own, one he wants me to train as a PPD so we each have dogs we can be fully involved with....

....can't say I object, y'know? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> In any case, please keep the information coming. It seems that the biggest points are A) Make sure everyone involved is on the same page for how the dog is raised, B) Have the main handler do primary interactions, C) Introduce informal commands for family to use and keep the serious commands to the specific handler. Correct? My fiance does want to be involved in the sport training as well. From the posts thus far, it seems as though this would mess up/confuse the dog and/or make it difficult for us to handle.. correct?

 Quote:

For a PPD I think it’s important that both you and your husband are fully in control of the dog at all times. I think it's a good thing for both of you to be involved in the training, during proofing you can train command rejection to ensure that no one else can take control of the dog.

So the 'rule' about only one person working with the pup is null for a PPD? I need to be the primary handler, but are you saying that my husband can also help (ie: playing tug, giving basic commands like 'sit,' feeding the puppy, etc.)?

Jason,
"I think it's a good thing for both of you to be involved in the training, during proofing you can train command rejection to ensure that no one else can take control of the dog"




If an owner is worried that their PPD is going to be taken control of by another person, it's not a PPD.

Will, it isn't so much that I'm worried that a stranger will be able to take control of the dog - it's the fact that my husband also wants to be involved, and I don't know if that's ok or not. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Will,
Of course a good PPD should be so tightly bonder with it's owner that the issue of command rejection shouldnt really need to be trained. But, I know a few dogs that can be thrown off. I've seen dog's down when a decoy yelled "Platz" if their owners had spent some time working on command rejection that never would have happened. There are dogs out there that are naturals but not everyone can handle Fetz.