[Connie Sutherland]

Yes, but treats and rewards are introductory, right? I mean, treats and rewards for me are not a lifelong routine by any means. When my dogs continue to obey long after the treats part (the teaching phase) is over, who are they working for? Me, I thought ----- the handler.

I think treats and rewards might be a way of life in the conformation ring......

 

[Connie Sutherland]

.........I think treats and rewards might be a way of life in the conformation ring......

And maybe not ----- I'm speaking out of turn here based on AKC TV shows.......

 

[Connie Sutherland]

QUOTE: Connie, if you used treats for teaching, and the obedience is still there for the most part after a while...but when the attention falters, you go back to reinforcing with treats and tugs.. END

But I don't. I don't personally know anyone (at least not in our club) who does.

I don't know anyone who carries treats or tugs around after the teaching phase. And the one-in-three variable reward schedule is a step (the last step in O.C.) away from tangible rewards.

Does anyone here who trains obedience with rewards in the teaching phase disagree with this?

 

[Connie Sutherland]

stress in OB

Andres,

OK, then, to stay on topic I guess I need to know exactly what kind of stress in obedience you mean, and whether the stress is introduced during the teaching phase.

I'm not sure I belong in this thread, but for now I will assume I do because you introduced it as being about obedience...... But the dogs I train are almost certainly never going to be under live fire in the dark in a crowd of people.

My point was that the dogs I train are begun with the "way" you deride (treats and tugs) and that these tangible rewards are phased out after the teaching phase. They are reintroduced if I start a new teaching phase.

Stress or fear in the teaching/learning phase is, I think, counterproductive. I believe that it slows the learning process.

In the distraction phase, then I guess we can call the distractions stress, can we not? So then who doesn't use stress *after* tangible rewards (teaching, and then distraction) in training obedience?

What I am not clear about is why these cannot be hand-in-hand, one phasing into the other.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

What do you do when obedience slacks after it's been taught?

...compulsion? :roll:

And yes, I want to say "of course" but that sounds condescending :lol: .....yes, after the teaching and distractions phases, if there is incorrect response or lack of response to a command then there is a correction... at least for me.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Lyn - repetition is the key.

Obedience is the result of repetative disciplined work – how you consistently apply, your obedience training, will be the gauge – obedience is give and take. Yes some compulsion, coercion, and some grooming and affection, all in equal measures. – dogs are all about aggression, and how you control it. You can control aggression with both food and a stick.

I think
:wink:

But this whole thread started (I think) as an argument *against* food used in training. Didn't it?

Quote: This "way" is directly opposed to the treats and rewards "way" END QUOTE

 

[Connie Sutherland]

This is the biggest piece of crap statement since Woody posted last.

Funny stuff, Sybil. I would ask you if you ever realize in advance the karmic beatdowns you set yourself up for...but if this thread is any indication, I would say NO......

Of course he does. He likes that. :lol:

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Hi, Reineir,

Heck yeah! Socialize socialize socialize!

But that isn't about teaching obedience, is it? It's about teaching life.

I'm saying that during the teaching phase (which for me happens to involve treats), stress is, for me, probably counterproductive.

Yes, the dog has been socialized like crazy.

And the dog will be "stressed" by distractions after the teaching phase.

Aside from the level of stress in the distraction (or proofing) phase, I'm not sure we (anyone) here is arguing against stress in obedience. Maybe we are arguing about when the stress is introduced (and remember that if it's not stressful to the individual dog, it's not stress).

Andres stated (I think) that stress in obedience was a "way" that was NOT the "way" that involves tangible rewards (quotation marks his).

I maintain that the tangible rewards are used in the teaching phase only, that they are phased out during the one-in-three phase, that they are not reintroduced unless a different teaching phase is, and that stress can be any distraction, including but not necessarily doing that ob up in the air or under fire in a dark room.

I think I train stable and confident dogs who don't have to go through a gunfire-crowded-dark-room phase because that's not what their lives will be like.

Recap: I don't see (again) how the teaching phase that involves rewards and the distraction (and correction) phases that follow are mutually exclusive.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Sorry, Reineir, you posted a second one while I was typing.

QUOTE: on this, however, I did train civilian dogs, and have seen this – food thing work - to believe it END QUOTE

Apparently you are not arguing against treats in the teaching phase, which I read Andres's opening post to be about. Or maybe it was more about treats and stress being two entirely separate "ways."


Good thread anyway.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Reinier,

Also sorry that I spelled your name wrong, twice!

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Ah! OK... 8) 8) 8)

......Connie, the reward for stress* in obedience is stress relief, doled out by the handler.....By the way, I'm NOT posting about the undesirability of treats or tugs. I'm posting to examine the method and benefits - if any - of stress in obedience. It not something discussed frequently, yet it may be useful...or at least enriching, if we get it discussed properly.

* The handler is NOT the source of the stress. :wink:

Stress during the teaching phase or after it? (Trying to get it discussed properly )

 

[Connie Sutherland]

would you guys consider it 'stress' if you start throwing food around and the puppy absolutely has to sit still until you tell him to? No corrections involve if the pup decides to get up and get the food...just remove them completely. I don't know how stressful this is (unless the pup is really hungry) but...I've found it's better for obedience then just say, putting the pup back in place, because they learn to control themselves.

That's not what I mean at all, as far as stress goes because, first, if the dog does well, you let him eat, therefore allowing him to reward himself; second, a pup should not be thinking that food on the ground means he has to "do something" to get it; and third, stress is not a DISTRACTION...rather, it is a situation or context that causes insecurity, which YOU as the HANDLER alleviate, thus becoming the "alleviator", which assists in establishing leadership and trust.

Can I have an example? (The part where the handler relieves the stress.)

 

[Connie Sutherland]

..................Agility, tracking and defense are all natural in our working dogs, obedience being the only unnatural, hence stressful. To increase bond and trust between dog and handler, stress must not come from its handler. On the other hand, the handler must be an effective stress-reliever......

Hi, Al,

Could I have an example of this (in training obedience)?

Thanks!

 

[Connie Sutherland]

I think the obedience in itself is a stress reliever.
If you heeling by an open sewer with a dog that stresses ove this, just giving an obedience command can take the dogs mind off of the sewer and relieve the stress.
That's a very simple example of the handler relieving the stress.

Ahhhhh............ gotcha! :>)

 

[Connie Sutherland]

I agree completely Al. We could never train for all the unknowns out there. Your comment about trust, bond and confidence is an excellent description of what I commented about the open sewer.

We would give an already-learned obedience command in a stressful situation, right? As opposed to teaching it in that situation?

I mean, by the open manhole, we are asking the dog to follow an obedience command that he has been trained -- not to learn a new one?

 

[Connie Sutherland]

As a point of interest, how do workingdogforum members view their dog's trust towards them?

How do you know your dog trusts you?

My dogs follow a command I taught them (with the help of Bob Scott, I readily admit) to step behind me and stay behind me in a scary confrontation. (Remember they aren't protection-trained dogs.) Is that a small example of trust?

I've had to use this command for real; I'm not just saying that they follow it in training conditions.

That's a really good question. I can tell because when I read it, no words fall out of my mouth. :lol:

It will be interesting to read how others judge their dogs' trust.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

In my case, my dog will try anything I ask him to. I realize a lot of that has to do with a confident dog to begin with.
The first time I had him climb a ladder, he went right up. The first time he was asked to jump into a running helicopter, he jumped right in. Just two examples of a confident dog that has learned to trust me. I don't know if the average pet could/would ever develope that same trust or confidence.

Those sound to me like really good examples.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Interesting things Andres, Reinier and Al...but all that text :roll: cost me a lot to read (and translate). You got me thinking :wink:

It made me think too, and I'm very glad I didn't have to translate as well.

Interesting thread!