[Bob Scott]

The simple answer is never.
However, what do you use as a rule to determine if the dog is trained
in a particular exercise?
My own choice is to turn my back on the dog and give him commands. If he obeys easily, then I know he fully understands what I want.
It's way to easy to give visual cues to the dog without knowing it. Many dogs will rely on these cues to the point of not truely "understanding" the vocal command.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

The simple answer is never.
However, what do you use as a rule to determine if the dog is trained
in a particular exercise?
My own choice is to turn my back on the dog and give him commands. If he obeys easily, then I know he fully understands what I want.
It's way to easy to give visual cues to the dog without knowing it. Many dogs will rely on these cues to the point of not truely "understanding" the vocal command.

Uh-oh.

Dang you, Bob! :lol:

But how do you decide when the cues are non-verbal? Say, if you have taught obedience with hand signals (for distance)?

 

[Bob Scott]

You teach the hand signal up close initially. Usually with a combination of vocal and visual command. You then work your way to the distance. I doubt most dogs will respond to the taught hand signal from the distance of a soccer field or even an AKC ring if you jumped to that distance right after it's taught close.
What's the difference? Nothing more then added distance but that can be a totally different view to the dog.
A another example of what I'm talking about is the walking/running sit/stand/down in Schutzhund. All our dogs know these commands when we face them yet many fall flat when they try doing these simple exercises while moving. the only difference is our movement. The dog is getting the same verbal command yet an entirely different "look" at the command and often initially messes it up.
The sendout is another. A dog may be solid as a rock doing a down/platz when it's standing right next to you. When it's running straight away from you it has a totally different "view" of the down/platz command.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

So then adding distance is a way to test the training of an exercise that is not primarily verbal, then.......?

 

[Bob Scott]

So then adding distance is a way to test the training of an exercise that is not primarily verbal, then.......?

Adding distance would be similar to adding new distractions.
Is the dog fully trained in any given command before it can do the same with distraction? Not really!
Look at the distance as just another type of distraction.
Turning my back is just something I do to eliminate the possiblilty of me giving the dog some unintentional visual que. example: head nod, differeent facial expression, etc. These are all things many dogs will que off of. In competition this means points off for a double command if the judge picks up on it. Even if they are unintentional.
I wouldn't try giving the dog a hand signal with my back turned though. hand signals are ment to be visual and that presents a COMPLETELY different signal from the dogs point of view. (Opposite/backwards)

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Right!

I meant, your o.p. mentions that turning your back to give the command was a way to test the training of that exercise.

So what would be a test when turning your back is not appropriate (like for a non-verbal command)?

 

[Bob Scott]

Distance or any distraction would be for visual command.
Distance would probably be my choice for hand signals for the simple reason that distance is the "normal" reason for a hand signal. Dogs are EXTREAMLY sensitive to movement.
When we practice the courage test, our dogs are not held by the handler. They sit at the handler's side and wait for the handler to give the bite command. The helper teases, calls, yells, waves, even shouts the dogs bite command at the dog but the dog can't leave till the handler gives the command.
The TD gives the handler a visual command when he wants the handler to send the dog. That may be a head nod, a flip of the stick, whatever!
With one particular dog, the signal has to be changed with each courage test because that dog will remember, from the last time, and will break if that old signal is given.
Thats from a distance of a soccer field.

 

[Lynn Ballard]

I surely have not had a dog that has ever been fully trained. But I'll take my half trained dogs any day of the week.

Hi Bob

 

[Matthew Grubb]

Bob… thanks for shattering everyone’s hopes and dreams with this thread!

 

[Bob Scott]

Hey kid! (((((((HUGS)))))))
Go to the New member's forum and introduce yourself. Lots of really good SAR folks on this site!

Anytime Mat! I think everyone should be as depressed and confused with their training as I am. :lol: :lol:

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Bob… thanks for shattering everyone’s hopes and dreams with this thread!

Yes, it did, didn't it! :lol:

I was blown away back in 2006 when I tried it!

 

[Howard Gaines III]

I agree with Bob, never. Like fine wine, they should get better with age. 8-[

 

[David Frost]

In my business, while I agree a dog is never "finished" there must come a time when it is ready to go to work. It's why you have established, written standards. The performance is fairly measured against that standard. When the minimum standard is met, it's hi, ho, hi, ho, it's off to work we go. Recognizing a dog is never finished is why inservice is not only necessary, but required. A proper training record tells you where you are. The standards tell you where you need to be. A well laid out training plan tells you how to get where you need to be.

DFrost

 

[Lisa Geller]

Hi Bob,

Dogs are very situational - because your dog understands your back to him giving a verbal is good but --just because he does not understand does not mean he is visually trained. It's hard to write this...

A dog that understands sit in front of you, may or may not transfer that to a sit command beside you.

I'm just throwing an axe into your "Im sure he knows it" theory. Just for some stimulating conversation :-s

 

[Al Curbow]

I think a dog is fully trained when it doesn't ever need a leash.

 

[Denny Campbell]

In my opinion, I think that if you think that the dog can be fully trained and you have nothing more to learn as a TEAM, then you mind as well take your lead and hang it up because you are cheating yourself and the dog. You can always learn more. Not only in dog training, but in life itself. If you cut yourself short and think that youve learned all you need to learn and dont need to learn anymore, then you are cutting yourself short. I look at life as another day that i can learn something. Weather it may be to pass it on to another or to take it and use it in my lil tool box, YOU ARE NEVER TO SMART TO LEARN SOMETHING TO NEW!!!!

 

[Bob Scott]

Hi Bob,

Dogs are very situational - because your dog understands your back to him giving a verbal is good but --just because he does not understand does not mean he is visually trained. It's hard to write this...

A dog that understands sit in front of you, may or may not transfer that to a sit command beside you.

I'm just throwing an axe into your "Im sure he knows it" theory. Just for some stimulating conversation :-s

I agree 100% about it all being situational. That's the whole point. We need to expose our dog to everything possible.

 

[Bob Scott]

I think a dog is fully trained when it doesn't ever need a leash.

Until I started training for competition, a leash was that thing you put on a dog when you took it to the vets once a year. I called them, they came! I just expected them to do what I asked. Life was so easy before I "got smart". :grin:
It's been downhill since I picked up that first leash. :lol: :wink:

 

[Michele McAtee]

The sendout is another. A dog may be solid as a rock doing a down/platz when it's standing right next to you. When it's running straight away from you it has a totally different "view" of the down/platz command.

We were proofing platz last week at club. An excellent suggestion from the seminar I had been at the weekend before by Michael Ellis...

platz your dog behind a knee wall (agility jump, anything, and platz the dog facing towards) Then you step over the wall and walk 20 or so paces beyond.

Not one dog fully held the platz, just like Ellis had predicted.

(I must though, give *some* credit to one who's owner maybe went a bit too long for the first time this dog experienced this exercise...the dog held, for a good minute...but ended up breaking when the handler sat down ) But all the other dogs (fully trained in platz????!!!! elbows went up the minute owner stepped over that knee wall.

IMO, a dog can be reliable, sure, but fully trained??? Honestly don't know the answer to that one.

Situational training. Aint it great????

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

You have just hit on what I talk about all the time. People want to correct a dog that only knows the situation and the pattern.

For me, I am not looking for "fully" trained, just absolutly understands. I know I am going to get ignored here and there. I like to say commands when not in a training situation to see what the response is. When I am getting the correct response all the time then I figure that I can correct at that point. If the dog is playing with another dog, I often see that they just do something, as they didn't hear what it is that I said and then I usually find out what I have worked on the most, as that is usually what they will do.

Sport work is the biggest detriment to obedience EVER. I see plenty of dogs that do what they are supposed to do on the field, but that is all. There is also nothing wrong with that, and if some guy I am paying money too wants to make my dog look like a fool to make some stupid point, then maybe I need to get some money back. There are no "walls" that the dog is put behind in Sch, so no need to train for it.grin

Mondio on the other hand, people lost that exersize all the time when the dog is put on a down next to a hay bale and the owner is out of sight, and the crowd is on the other side of the bale. (yet people still tell me how sch is soooooo much harder as the ob has to be so correct..........suuuuuuure it does)