The Duct Tape Concept....a meandering thought

[Chukar12]

It occurred to me reading the clicker training thread that a number of us are inclined to defend our own contemporary or progressive training methodology. This of course, is human nature. The fascinating piece of the discussion is our own self-awareness or perception of how we do things.

Why are some of us inclined to fixate on the importance of the "command?"

Speaking in generalities nearly every professional trainer I have tutored under, every book I have read and every video I have watched encourages the trainer to limit the verbal interaction to almost eliminating it. Even if I stratify the camps to compulsion and operant conditioning there are similarities in that through repetition a behavior is established to the point of habit and then you are at liberty to call it what you wish. Turning a behavior to a command is the easiest part, but applying a command before you have consistent behavior retards the process.

Delmar Smith was mentioned in the previous thread, arguably; a more progressive trainer never lived, and many people follow his methodology from a time period they choose without acknowledging the progressiveness of his program right through the Huntsmith program that Rick and Ronnie produce today. In the Puppy Development videos you will not see them saying; come, here, heel, whoop, no, sit, stay, blah, blah, blah...they show you how to use different contact points and pressure to create behavior...the neck for most things and the flank for whoa all the way through the process never using words until the finished product. In the Hickox videos you will see dogs clicked and treated in a quasi operant conditioning method for simply doing the right thing no command until the behaviors are consistent and the dog is old enough for discipline.

Clickers are not cues and they are certainly not a command they mark a behavior as correct. They do it without emotion or any voice inflection. I believe this is important because for all of their wonderful qualities dogs cannot reason at the speed of even the dumbest adult human. On top of that, the language barrier is not cross culture, it is cross species...and no matter how progressively loud you yell "more cream for my coffee" to a native in rural Mexico they will not understand any better than when you asked it quietly.

I cannot tell you the number of people that tell me their dogs "problem" occurred without warning or provocation. They just start flagging out of the blue, lose intensity on point, stop 10 feet from the handler on recall...lots of other behaviors. I am coming to believe those are all confidence issues. Theses same people describe to me how they "have never put any pressure on the dog around birds" What about when it bolts out of its kennel, what about at 16 weeks when its loose in the house and grabs the babies PB and J, what about when its running loose and snares the sequins on someone's cocktail dress? How do you react, what words, what inflection then?

I believe professional trainers and top flight amateurs know that the key to success is setting the dog up for the right exposure for their maturity and training level. They have crates, kennels, check cords and stake outs to avoid situations they cannot control and this keeps the human dog relationship on the proper plain.

[whoadog]

I understand Smith's method and will not argue it's success. Still, there is more than one way to train. I do believe in introducing vocal commands early and in clearly effective ways. I do believe that voice, properly used, can be used extremely effectively for both correction and praise. The problem, imho, is not in the tool (voice), it is in the application. Most people simply do not take the time to really learn how dogs communicate. When one has a thorough understanding of "dog speak", it is not that difficult to help a dog understand what the trainer wants. Two examples:
1. When I have a dog that is clearly out of line, read that knowingly disobeying a command that the dog has a clear grasp on, and in fairly close proximity, I will sometimes actually growl at the dog followed by a very guttural low toned "no". That's usually all it takes to get what I want out of a well socialized dog that recognizes my authority as pack leader.
2. I did an evalutation on a very soft, timid if you will, dog last Friday. The owners said she wouldn't allow strangers to touch her. So, I laid down on the ground on my back, extended my arms and spoke very softly. After about 30 seconds of being non-threatening, she approached me and let me scratch her chin. Within 5 minutes, I was able to do a little training exercise.
Neither of these examples is possible without speaking, sometimes quite a lot, to the dog, and in essence giving commands. So, different strokes for different folks. I will say that I absolutely agree that most people say entirely too much to their dogs in the way of commands. But, again, the problem is not with "the hammer". The problem is the "tool" driving the nail.
P.S. Please don't think I'm calling Delmar Smith a tool.

[slistoe]

Excellent post Chukar.

[Sharon]

Absolutely. x2

[buckeyebowman]

I understand Smith's method and will not argue it's success. Still, there is more than one way to train. I do believe in introducing vocal commands early and in clearly effective ways. I do believe that voice, properly used, can be used extremely effectively for both correction and praise. The problem, imho, is not in the tool (voice), it is in the application. Most people simply do not take the time to really learn how dogs communicate. When one has a thorough understanding of "dog speak", it is not that difficult to help a dog understand what the trainer wants. Two examples:
1. When I have a dog that is clearly out of line, read that knowingly disobeying a command that the dog has a clear grasp on, and in fairly close proximity, I will sometimes actually growl at the dog followed by a very guttural low toned "no". That's usually all it takes to get what I want out of a well socialized dog that recognizes my authority as pack leader.
2. I did an evalutation on a very soft, timid if you will, dog last Friday. The owners said she wouldn't allow strangers to touch her. So, I laid down on the ground on my back, extended my arms and spoke very softly. After about 30 seconds of being non-threatening, she approached me and let me scratch her chin. Within 5 minutes, I was able to do a little training exercise.
Neither of these examples is possible without speaking, sometimes quite a lot, to the dog, and in essence giving commands. So, different strokes for different folks. I will say that I absolutely agree that most people say entirely too much to their dogs in the way of commands. But, again, the problem is not with "the hammer". The problem is the "tool" driving the nail.
P.S. Please don't think I'm calling Delmar Smith a tool.

I love that! That's exactly what I did with my Springer pup. When I first brought him home he was a little unsure of himself, which is to be expected. In the parlance that I grew up with, the first thing I needed to do with that dog was to "bold him up". So I rolled around the floor with him just like every other dog I've ever had, hunting breed or not. What did he learn from this? That I was fun to be around and was not a threat to him. That it was OK for him to "get" me, and it was OK for me to "get" him back. He learned to be comfortable and confident around me, and he also learned his place in the "pack". Dogs can be comfortable with their place in the pecking order, whether in the litter or in your household, as long as they learn what it is, and the sooner the better. It seems to keep "hardheadedness" at a minimum.

It was just a natural thing for me, but I talked to my dog constantly and it sure didn't seem to do any harm. And not just "commands", more like conversation. Right from house training every time I noticed him on his feet and sniffing around, I'd get up, call his name, and ask him, "Want to go outside? Want to go outside? Outside?" and move to the back door. When he'd get done doing his business I'd hug him and pet him and praise him up big. He got the message in short order. He associated doing his business outside with love and praise. Plus, my constant talking got the dog clued in to my vocal tones. Dogs are great at reading body language and, I believe, vocal tone. I could discipline that dog without screaming like a banshee on fire. By 4-5 months I had come, sit, stay, and heel well established, and everything else just flowed from there. Dogs may have a brain the size of a golf ball, but they are far from stupid.

[Maurice]

Good post Chukar.

Mo

[Cajun Casey]

Except, Delmar wasn't a dog guy.

[will-kelly]

+1 Chukar -1 Whoadog

***Not trying to start anything Whoadog

Whoadog in your reply I believe you actually prove the point Chukar is making. In example one you have already taught the command and are working with a dog that is defiant. I would venture to wager that in the gutteral growl it isn't the command as much as it is the body posture. Do the dogs ever respond without turning to you when you use this method? Does the gutteral growl work at 100 yards? I vote proximity and posture.

In example two, lying on the ground, is a posture that the dog recognizes instinctually. You could sit in a chair all day long talking your face off and I would wager you would not get the results that you did with the lying on the ground. Without seeing the dog and only reading what you had to do to get the dog to trust you, best guess is that this is a socialization issue.

It is not only Delmar Smith, Rick or Ronnie. It's George Hickox, Mike Lardy, Ben Garcia, etc. You name it and they all enforce the silence while teaching a dog. Once the dog understands then the command which is not only a word, but a whistle, hand signal or even body posture. All communicate to the dog what the should already know and understand.

Brad Higgins method intrigues me and I wish he lived on the east coast. I'd like to see it first hand. Non-verbal and the bird teaches the dog. There's no way I have the patience for that.

[whoadog]

Whoadog in your reply I believe you actually prove the point Chukar is making. In example one you have already taught the command and are working with a dog that is defiant.

It might sound that way. However, especially when puppy training, I introduce voice commands immediately. I just do it in a way that insures the dog automatically complies with the command. I also use my voice to express approval for the dog "doing it right". We have two things going on here. Association between the movement and my command and association between my voice and the dog's pleasure (and later displeasure). I will change tones to the lower pitch when I actually introduce discipline/punishment/whateveryouwanttocallit. I suppose the biggest difference between my method and the Smiths' is my "pressure points". I use a method that has the dog moving on its own in precisely the way I want it to as I give the command. I also believe in "layering" my training sessions. I don't wait to see complete mastery of one command before I start with the next. It may sound like an ineffective way to train, but within a week I can have a very young pup, as little as 8 or 9 weeks old responding to at least 3 and often 4 different commands including "whoa" (my expertise is in pointing breeds). Within a month I can take it to the field and expect to have good control over a bold, confident dog. The pup is following the commands not because I am making him but because he wants to. Again, voice is introduced in the very first session. I do believe this is rather different than "The Silent Method".

By the way, I think a friendly debate would be a welcome change from the norm on this site and am certainly not offending by anyone challenging anything I post. In fact, I welcome it. It makes for a good way to exchange ideas and learn new concepts.

[Chukar12]

Except, Delmar wasn't a dog guy.

Yes...Yes, Mary, Mary quite contrary...I know, I know ... "everything I know about training dogs a horse learned me"

Just like any other horse trainer that won multiple National Championships and bred much of the baseline for the modern Brittany world, while traveling internationally to discuss and learn dog training.

[Chukar12]

Brad Higgins method intrigues me and I wish he lived on the east coast. I'd like to see it first hand. Non-verbal and the bird teaches the dog. There's no way I have the patience for that.

Brad follows the original premise of Bill West though he has tweaked some things to his own methodology, I live very near him and occasionally we train in the same area. The true admirable thing about Brad in my observation is his patience and willingness to train some of the dogs and people that he has roll up for clients....some of the critters that climb out of the Audi station wagons for training at his site are quite a challenge...and he seems to work through them.

Maurice Lindley (Training with Mo) is on the Eastern side of the country and he is a guru of this methodology. I know he does seminars and I wish I was on your side of the country to attend one there.

[ezzy333]

Mo in Carolina and Jonesy in Kentucky both train basically using the West method and do seminars like Joe said. Try to catch one or both.

Ezzy

[Neil]

I get the silience thing and have been training that way since the early 70's.

But all they guys that I have seen with "trick" dogs, you know the ones that can count, pick out the blue ball, talk, and such, chatter like an auctioneer. I have no idea which word is the cue.

When you look at the level of training, our dogs are not even 10% of theirs.

So maybe there is more than one way to train a dog.

[whoadog]

Why are some of us inclined to fixate on the importance of the "command?"

I've given this question serious thought today. My answer is: Because it keeps me focused on what I am trying to accomplish. When I give the command I have a picture in my head of what I want. Without the word, I can't "see" the result. What command I use is unimportant. I could use "green" for "whoa" as long as I picture the dog screeching to a halt when I say "green". I do all the other things I discussed earlier. But, the literal answer to the literal question is the verbal command is as much for me as for the dog.

[Chukar12]

Neil,

I have seen a video on the old Phil Donahue (I think...could have been Merv, I was about 5 when it was filmed) show of a cattle dog of some sort who was said to have a very advanced vocabulary. The dog would look at items laid out on the set collected from people in the audience randomly. The handler would say something akin to; "bring me the red hat" and the dog would go to the red hat. He could mention other stationary items and the dog would go touch them with his nose. In the class I was in they broke down the tape...the dog cued off whatever the man's eyes were on. In a couple of instances the man said "no" as the dog would go to pick something up and it grabbed the item next to it. Still it was a very effective mode of communication and similar to wolves that signal pack members where to stand in a stalk by simply gazing.

This is an interesting exercise...point at something 6 or 8 feet away when a pup is around they will almost always look at your hand and then back at you. Try just gazing a direction when you have the pups attention especially if it can see you from a profile and the smallest pups will almost always look where you are looking.

I do know and agree that dogs can memorize a ton of cues, call it vocabulary I suppose...but they learn a behavior first before understanding the words.

Another exercise that will prove they can learn "cues or words" for a behavior is the pre-cue, cue concept. If your dog stone cold knows the word "sit." Try this, for a week straight say to the dog "golf" pause a second and then say "sit" See how long it takes the dog to start sitting when you say "golf" it will not be long. Another example...anybody have to spell "eat" or "food" to keep their dog from going crazy?

I don't believe dogs are trained with words, they can be cued and controlled with them once they know behaviors. I too believe there are tons of ways to train a dog but by a huge preponderance trainers in nearly all disciplines will put human verbal interaction near the bottom of the list.

[Cajun Casey]

Except, Delmar wasn't a dog guy.

Yes...Yes, Mary, Mary quite contrary...I know, I know ... "everything I know about training dogs a horse learned me"

Just like any other horse trainer that won multiple National Championships and bred much of the baseline for the modern Brittany world, while traveling internationally to discuss and learn dog training.

With no extra pants.......

He is different, not like anyone I've ever met.

[Chukar12]

I've given this question serious thought today. My answer is: Because it keeps me focused on what I am trying to accomplish. When I give the command I have a picture in my head of what I want. Without the word, I can't "see" the result. What command I use is unimportant. I could use "green" for "whoa" as long as I picture the dog screeching to a halt when I say "green". I do all the other things I discussed earlier. But, the literal answer to the literal question is the verbal command is as much for me as for the dog.

I certainly would not care to change what anyone else has been successful with, this is a fair response to the question, and I think the "risk" of words is not as much the word as the frustration and to a lesser extent the elation that comes through with humans. I know that some human emotions and human reaction to those emotions befuddles me...it must be ten fold for a dog.

Another point that interests me is the term "whoa." i teach it without interaction with birds to all dogs. Not formally until they are 8-10 months old. I never use it as a "pointing tool" per se. I try very hard to avoid any talking around dogs and birds. I do however admit to keeping the whoa option open with my broke dogs. If I have a throwdown bird running around a dog and I see a tail or haunches drop i will provide a little "whoa" reminder that we aren't chasing birds while the judges are watching...

[Winchey]

Neil,

I have seen a video on the old Phil Donahue (I think...could have been Merv, I was about 5 when it was filmed) show of a cattle dog of some sort who was said to have a very advanced vocabulary. The dog would look at items laid out on the set collected from people in the audience randomly. The handler would say something akin to; "bring me the red hat" and the dog would go to the red hat. He could mention other stationary items and the dog would go touch them with his nose. In the class I was in they broke down the tape...the dog cued off whatever the man's eyes were on. In a couple of instances the man said "no" as the dog would go to pick something up and it grabbed the item next to it. Still it was a very effective mode of communication and similar to wolves that signal pack members where to stand in a stalk by simply gazing.

This is an interesting exercise...point at something 6 or 8 feet away when a pup is around they will almost always look at your hand and then back at you. Try just gazing a direction when you have the pups attention especially if it can see you from a profile and the smallest pups will almost always look where you are looking.

I do know and agree that dogs can memorize a ton of cues, call it vocabulary I suppose...but they learn a behavior first before understanding the words.

Another exercise that will prove they can learn "cues or words" for a behavior is the pre-cue, cue concept. If your dog stone cold knows the word "sit." Try this, for a week straight say to the dog "golf" pause a second and then say "sit" See how long it takes the dog to start sitting when you say "golf" it will not be long. Another example...anybody have to spell "eat" or "food" to keep their dog from going crazy?

I don't believe dogs are trained with words, they can be cued and controlled with them once they know behaviors. I too believe there are tons of ways to train a dog but by a huge preponderance trainers in nearly all disciplines will put human verbal interaction near the bottom of the list.

I was watching a show a while ago and there was a birder collie that had learned several different objects. I think it was several dozen. The scuentists were skeptical but the dog could even be shown a picture of the object and go into the next room and choose the corresponding object.

Anyways, the shaping teqniques that are used to first capture these behaviours as well as all other positive reinforcement training follows your duct tape premise.

[Winchey]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... l?fsm=full

Link to the border collie I was talking about.

[Neil]

Thanks for the link, check it out.

Most of us would train with one or two word cues and not repeat them, this guy rambles on the entire time the dog is working the task.

I have seen old guys with cattle dogs that never stop yapping, instead of a distraction as we think, it seems to motivate the dog.

[mountaindogs]

I really enjoy this topic. Good points all! I think there is a blend to my personal training of ALL 3 types of cues. Verbal, Body language, and contact point. I will say MOST of the trick dog trainers use body language or tonal cues. They talk chattery for the sake of the audience AND it makes it more fun for the trainer. More like a conversation. I personally am usually more quiet than that, but not quiet enough. The idea that the trainer needs duct tape is something I have learned slowly but every dog brings me more along the lines. Quieter every time Trick dog trainers are rarely working dogs when the dogs cannot see or hear the trainer. So sight and sound cues work pretty well. The dog may leave briefly but it is ON a trained action usually. BUT certainly there are many exceptions and lots of them. On both sides. As I branch into the retriever world, I see a strong difference there. Lots of training and command work and drills and human reliance. Bird dog trainers want a different thing. There may not be as many different "tricks" but they are HIGH TEMPTATION and tasks we are asking them to accomplish and we are wanting the enthusiasm to show, and reliablility whether we are there to help or not. I find this part a very hard to explain thing to new trainers, why you want to be so careful and gentle and not BE THE SOURCE of CORRECTION. Maybe it's because I don't fully understand why myself, but nevertheless, it's true. So many people, myself included want compliance if a dog is creeping. I want to dog to OBEY ME. Gentle training or not it Seems so simple, just put the brakes on and listen. But the more I train, the more I realize how important it is for the dog, specifically bird dogs, to view me as team member and not a restriction or competition.... I don't know, I guess I am just saying that bird dog training overlaps alot, but it's very unique. Moreso than I would have believed as a novice. I clicker train, I LOVE it, but Delmar knew what he was talking about.
Now I am off to order some DVD's and learn more about the contact point concepts.

[Winchey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTuiE1 ... ata_player

For anyone interested here is a link to the video I first seen of Chasser. It was on PBS's Nova, How Smart are dogs? Pretty interesting, although a little of topic as it doesen't really discuss most effective training methods.

[whoadog]

Another point that interests me is the term "whoa." i teach it without interaction with birds to all dogs. Not formally until they are 8-10 months old.

I agree that "whoa" should never be taught in presence of birds. I introduce it in yard training. As for the 8-10 months old thing, I would agree with the caveat that some can take it younger and some need to be much older. My Vizla was nearly 16 months old before I could put any pressure at all on her around birds. She knew "whoa" in the yard and was very good at it. But she needed more confidence around birds and guns so "whoa" was on the back burner for a long, long time with that particular dog. My definition of "whoa" is "stop and stand", not "stop and point" so I agree it is not a pointing exercise.

I know that some human emotions and human reaction to those emotions befuddles me...it must be ten fold for a dog.

I think I might disagree with the "ten fold for a dog" assertion. IMHO, dogs are unencumbered by "perspective". Humans react to emotion based on their experiences and perceptions. Dogs see it as it really is. That's why I never train "angry". The dogs know it no matter how I try to hide it and my training results are never what I want. Dogs seem to have a sixth sense about how we feel even when were are not completely aware of our emotions ourselves.

I think the "risk" of words is not as much the word as the frustration and to a lesser extent the elation that comes through with humans

I agree with your assessment of the risks. A really good trainer, however, understands (and has faith in) the process. So those risks are minimized. I don't get angry when a dog has not grasped the concept I am trying to train because that is not the dog's fault. That is my shortcoming as a trainer. By the way, there is a big difference in the way I "chatter" with a dog and in the way I give a command. A command is a single word spoken as an order. Dogs quickly realize by the change in tone when I am telling them to do something and when we are "just talking".

Thanks for posting this thread Chukar. It is great to have a real discussion about training philosophies and perspectives.