clicker training

[brady124]

i have done some research on clicker training I see some are saying don't do it with a hunting dog, anyone out there got experience with this? I would like to try it.

[Sharon]

I use it for a new pup in the house. It's fun and negates the change in voice/words we often use in praise. Never found any use for it in training outside.

[brady124]

I use it for a new pup in the house. It's fun and negates the change in voice/words we often use in praise. Never found any use for it in training outside.

im getting a griff everything I read is positive reinforcement from what I have read about clicker is great. at what point do you start to use words along with the clicker?

[Sharon]

When the dog knows the command well.

Just my opinion Brady, but positive reinforcement has its limits when training a hunting dog. It's fine for a house dog , walk around the block dog, where the dog is always near but ......

What are you going to do in the woods/field when your dog ignores your " come " command and chases that deer or bird, gives you the finger and heads for the high way? I can assure you that birds will mean much to that dog than its owner.

"everything I read is positive reinforcement ".... You're reading the wrong stuff for a hunting dog.

[greg jacobs]

Willow creek has some youtube videos of clicker training. I do similar with part of their food but no clicker. Mainly work on come. And feed them part of their food every day by hand. I do that from when I pick them up for a month or so. At a year my pup still comes up and bumps my hand. He knows there is no food but is wanting a pat.
I think it's a really positive way to work with a real young pup.
I would go to youtube and search willowcreekkennels. He has some good things to work on the first month or two.

[marysburg]

I have used the George Hickox clicker training for my youngest dog, and it worked very well. Clicker methods are easy with a very young pup, and they teach the dog 'how to learn' and how to offer behaviours. I think it sets the dog up for an easier time with more advanced training.

[polmaise]

i have done some research on clicker training

What is your understanding of the method >?

[brady124]

i have done some research on clicker training

What is your understanding of the method >?

I have watched willow creek videos and it seams the pup catches on fairly fast but im leary of video cause you never know how much work the dog has put in before the video was made. from what I understand as soon as the pup does what you want you click and give treat right away. I am just wondering how many people out there use this method.

[polmaise]

from what I understand as soon as the pup does what you want you click and give treat right away. I am just wondering how many people out there use this method.

You would first have to understand that the click is a reward marker and that the dog would also have to understand this. I agree some videos show only the result than the process or ethos of the method. I would suggest you look at some of the sources such as Karen Pryor http://www.clickertraining.com/node/153

As for how many people use the method there are tens of thousands that do ,mostly for close obedience .

[Gordon Guy]

Willow creek has some youtube videos of clicker training. I do similar with part of their food but no clicker. Mainly work on come. And feed them part of their food every day by hand. I do that from when I pick them up for a month or so. At a year my pup still comes up and bumps my hand. He knows there is no food but is wanting a pat.
I think it's a really positive way to work with a real young pup.
I would go to youtube and search willowcreekkennels. He has some good things to work on the first month or two.

+1 I do the same thing as above.

I don't use the clicker but I use the phrase "Good Girl" or "Good Boy" in place of the click, when conditioning the pup to the treat. I always seem to misplace the clicker. It still works.

[Timewise65]

I started our newest 6 month old puppy in an obedience class that focused on clicker training. After the third night I quit and went back to traditional obedience training using a pinch collar! I realized that with our retrievers, we eventually transition them to e collars. By using a pinch collar properly for early training they learn from the get go that the neck pressure is part of following commands. Their is not logical way to take a clicker into a field training scenario for retrievers....especially when we begin training using whistle commands for handling, here, and sit!

[greg jacobs]

I don't use the clicker but use the food. And only use it the first month or so. From 8 to 12 weeks.

[Gordon Guy]

I agree that the field is no place for the clicker or treat training. I only use treats 100% of the time for the first couple training events and then I start to wean pup off the treats. Wean = a treat every other time and then ever third time, etc until the treats are not needed to get the behavior. No more treats are given after a month or so. I have found that when I start a 7-8 week old puppy at home and yard and on your walks to the mail box, etc... that the "Here" command has been instilled in pup for several months before I introduce other methods to re-enforce the behavior (i.e. e-collar with a checkcord). I have a reasonable assurance that pup knows the "Here' command and collar conditioning, re-enforcing with the e-collar, goes much quicker. And pup still enjoys learning. Having a pup that wants to learn and looks forward to training is a good thing

Depending on the breed of dog your training, positive re-enforcement training techniques will get you further.

[Gordon Guy]

"I agree that the field is no place for the clicker or treat training. "

I guess that's not entirely true. When pup is 2 or 3 months old (birds are really not yet the draw for pup) and I'm in the field with my pup I'll usually have a some treats in my pocket to re-enforce the behavior.

[Trekmoor]

I am a long , long way from being expert on clicker use but I have used the clicker with a few dogs and always with good results for the limited use I had for it. I used the clicker with dogs that had very poor or non-existent retrieve deliveries.

Problems that might have been sorted with F.F. I sorted using a clicker ..........but I stuck to close in to me retrieving problems.
I'm another one who has little or no faith in the clicker when hunting a dog at range. I haven't tried it but I could maybe fully train a spaniel using a clicker given the spaniels hunting range is , in Britain, within 20 yards of the trainer. A pointing dog however is a very different story ......I suspect most of the folk using this forum would claim at least a 200 yards range for their pointing dogs.

A clicker can be heard at 20 yards but not at 200.

It is not necessary to use a clicker however, just about any sound will do and I have sometimes wondered if I could use an e-collar set only to buzz. The "buzz" would take the place of the "click" and the dog would hear it even 200 plus yards away. This could be done but the buzz would need a lot of close in reinforcement with food rewards if the buzz was to remain effective.

I will be very interested to read what others think about clicker training or about variations of it that some of you may have tried.

Bill T.

[Sharon]

from what I understand as soon as the pup does what you want you click and give treat right away. I am just wondering how many people out there use this method.

You would first have to understand that the click is a reward marker and that the dog would also have to understand this. I agree some videos show only the result than the process or ethos of the method. I would suggest you look at some of the sources such as Karen Pryor http://www.clickertraining.com/node/153

As for how many people use the method there are tens of thousands that do ,mostly for close obedience .

Good link. She lives 10 km from me. That's where I took the course.

[polmaise]

from what I understand as soon as the pup does what you want you click and give treat right away. I am just wondering how many people out there use this method.

You would first have to understand that the click is a reward marker and that the dog would also have to understand this. I agree some videos show only the result than the process or ethos of the method. I would suggest you look at some of the sources such as Karen Pryor http://www.clickertraining.com/node/153

As for how many people use the method there are tens of thousands that do ,mostly for close obedience .

Good link. She lives 10 km from me. That's where I took the course.

Say Hi' the next time you call on your neighbour Sharon.
Would love to know how she gets the hunting spaniel in cover to bump a rabbit from the seat and stops to flush .
I used a Big Ball for it to push with it's nose when it was a pup. But I'm sure it's just a process.

[oregon woodsmoke]

I tried clicker training and it works extremely well. However, it is a new system to learn and I am set in my ways and what I have been doing all along works well, too.

Clicker is an excellent way to train a good fetch if you don't want to force break or don't have good enough timing to force break.

I use cookies to train just for the first few times we do a new exercise. It is easy to lure the dog into position without resistance so the dog can be praised. It beats trying to wrestle them down. You have to get the dog to do it right before you can praise them and luring with a treat is the easiest way.

I've got an e-collar and use it, but it is set on "beep" and it only reminds the dog that yes, I really can still reach them way out there. Whatever it is that I want them to do "way out there" they are well trained to do it and understand what I want them to do. The e-collar is just a fall-back and I have very rarely ever needed to set it higher, and then not more than once. The beep works just fine.-- except for the Welsh Springer who wouldn't get off of my feet if she had the collar on. Her trick to not getting zapped was to remain right next to me and nothing would persuade her otherwise. Without the collar, she worked like she was supposed to, so I guess I can't really complain. Springers are easy, though and they work close and are eager to please.

I'm not going to clicker train a bird dog, but I don't know why it wouldn't work. You can clicker train a killer whale and there is absolutely no way you are going to force that whale to do anything it doesn't want to do. A dog should be a lot easier to train than a whale is.

[marysburg]

Clicker training can be used in the development of the very young pup, but it only lays groundwork for the transition to fieldwork. It is well explained in George Hickox's training DVDs or in articles on his website. It sure worked well on my last pup, and I would use it again on my next one. The first 5 gundogs we had were trained by more traditional methods, but I think that clicker training was easier on both the pup and handler. Its function is to boost the pup's confidence and get the pup to offer behaviours in order to get a reward. At first, the reward is a food treat, but when the pup is doing field work, the bird is the reward. The clicker and food rewards are left behind, and never make it to the field.

[gonehuntin']

I'm not going to clicker train a bird dog, but I don't know why it wouldn't work. You can clicker train a killer whale and there is absolutely no way you are going to force that whale to do anything it doesn't want to do. A dog should be a lot easier to train than a whale is.

I'm not so sure about that. You're right, you can't force that whale to do what it doesn't want, but as I see it, you are not trying to make that whale go AGAINST it's natural instincts either. I also question that a dog is smarter than an Orca. The Orca and Dolphin brains are far more developed than man's, or so the scientists say and I believe them. The only way we could draw a parallel between training an Orca and a bird do, is, when the whale is in full pursuit of a bleeding seal to stop it and I don't THINK any trainer, anywhere, can do that.

Which is why I have never believed that any person on this earth can train a versatile dog to the highest levels without using aversive methods, pressure. You are stopping that dog from performing a behaviour that every instinct in his body and being tells him he should be doing. I haven't seen it been done yet and I've been at this a looooong time.

[polmaise]

I haven't seen it been done yet and I've been at this a looooong time.

This.

[Stoneface]

It depends on what you're training the dog for and what method you want to use. I use Maurice's method mostly with a few hybrid drills of my own, so it would be a bad idea to go to clicker training in the field, but I use it to teach puppies tons of things. Here's a video of a man who has Setter pups completely broke before they are a year old. If you know anything about Setters, you know that's really something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI-mZ9bA0A

[ezzy333]

I see a dog that is trained to stop when told or when she smells a bird but you would be hard pressed to call that a point. Just lacks way to much intensity. May be just my opinion but it I how it appears.

[gonehuntin']

Thing is, he was saying "good dog" a lot more than he was using the clicker. I approve whole heartedly. I'd far rather that positive reinforcement come from my vouce rather than a mechanical piece of crap.

I also don't get your comment about setters. I had them for 15 years and they're some of the most natural dog's there are.

[mnaj_springer]

I doubt I could get my pointer to take food while on point haha. She has a one track mind.

[Chukar12]

I am an advocate of clicker training to help establish behaviors; habits if you will in young dogs that are relative to desired traits later in the finished product. In example, teaching a dog to stand up and stand still is a precursor standing on point without the chase. What we see on the video is a small sample size ... the smallest, a single dog, in a back yard standing still. It is my experience that a dog will act markedly different in a canyon full of wild coveys, or under the whistle in a competitive trial. As an advocate of operant conditioning I will provide the opinion that I believe it is next to impossible if not in fact impossible to train a dog without some aversive methods, for the record I feel the same about humans. Nature did not build us to function without a path to reward that did not include a learning period where we had to learn that some decisions were uncomfortable.

Regarding the video, that dog will work for many folks, however I believe it is well on its way to being too reliant on the welfare of it's human for rewards. That will show up in drive, tenacity and intensity or style; this is of course speculative and my opinion. The dog is already looking for a reward and affirmation other than the prey. Many of us can accept that and many of us are looking for something more raw. Where birds are scarce, wild and the country is big, you will drag that dog into a lot of backs. I VERY respectfully disagree with Gonehuntin, with acknowledgement that he has trained more dogs than I ever will. There is a difference between the voice and the use of a marker (contraption) they both have their place but in consistently marking behaviors a voice is not as consistent as a marker. This dog will work for some and disappoint others.

[ezzy333]

I am an advocate of clicker training to help establish behaviors; habits if you will in young dogs that are relative to desired traits later in the finished product. In example, teaching a dog to stand up and stand still is a precursor standing on point without the chase. What we see on the video is a small sample size ... the smallest, a single dog, in a back yard standing still. It is my experience that a dog will act markedly different in a canyon full of wild coveys, or under the whistle in a competitive trial. As an advocate of operant conditioning I will provide the opinion that I believe it is next to impossible if not in fact impossible to train a dog without some aversive methods, for the record I feel the same about humans. Nature did not build us to function without a path to reward that did not include a learning period where we had to learn that some decisions were uncomfortable.

Regarding the video, that dog will work for many folks, however I believe it is well on its way to being too reliant on the welfare of it's human for rewards. That will show up in drive, tenacity and intensity or style; this is of course speculative and my opinion. The dog is already looking for a reward and affirmation other than the prey. Many of us can accept that and many of us are looking for something more raw. Where birds are scarce, wild and the country is big, you will drag that dog into a lot of backs. I VERY respectfully disagree with Gonehuntin, with acknowledgement that he has trained more dogs than I ever will. There is a difference between the voice and the use of a marker (contraption) they both have their place but in consistently marking behaviors a voice is not as consistent as a marker. This dog will work for some and disappoint others.

Amen

[Sharon]

I am an advocate of clicker training to help establish behaviors; habits if you will in young dogs that are relative to desired traits later in the finished product. In example, teaching a dog to stand up and stand still is a precursor standing on point without the chase. What we see on the video is a small sample size ... the smallest, a single dog, in a back yard standing still. It is my experience that a dog will act markedly different in a canyon full of wild coveys, or under the whistle in a competitive trial. As an advocate of operant conditioning I will provide the opinion that I believe it is next to impossible if not in fact impossible to train a dog without some aversive methods, for the record I feel the same about humans. Nature did not build us to function without a path to reward that did not include a learning period where we had to learn that some decisions were uncomfortable.

Regarding the video, that dog will work for many folks, however I believe it is well on its way to being too reliant on the welfare of it's human for rewards. That will show up in drive, tenacity and intensity or style; this is of course speculative and my opinion. The dog is already looking for a reward and affirmation other than the prey. Many of us can accept that and many of us are looking for something more raw. Where birds are scarce, wild and the country is big, you will drag that dog into a lot of backs. I VERY respectfully disagree with Gonehuntin, with acknowledgement that he has trained more dogs than I ever will. There is a difference between the voice and the use of a marker (contraption) they both have their place but in consistently marking behaviors a voice is not as consistent as a marker. This dog will work for some and disappoint others.

SO WELL said. Thank you.

[gonehuntin']

I VERY respectfully disagree with Gonehuntin, with acknowledgement that he has trained more dogs than I ever will. There is a difference between the voice and the use of a marker (contraption) they both have their place but in consistently marking behaviors a voice is not as consistent as a marker. .

That is a heck of a good post. Excellent. I probably concede your point on clicker vs voice since I'm one of those old fossils that sees no reason to change. Unless I start training Dolphin.

[shags]

Hey, GH,
We dinosaurs have science behind our methods Step away from the clickers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ani ... s-get-you/

[gonehuntin']

Saved from humiliation by Shags! You know, I can't argue against the clicker because I don't really understand it. Everytime someone explains it to me, it makes no sense. I can understand dolphin and whale working to it because of the noise transmission under water. Now, I'm willing to admit I'm probably wrong about this before I even say it, but it's what I believe. I believe that we become too mechanical. A dog loves to hear a human voice and be caressed by the gentle touch. Take that away and click at the dog and to me, it takes a step of personalization away from the training equation. Like using a vibration or buzzer on a collar to WARN a dog. I won't do it. I want the warning to come from ME, not an apparatus. I also want him to know the correction is coming from me. I do use tone on a collar to call a dog in or correct it's range, but I really see no difference between that and the whistle other than it keeps spooky birds calmer. Too set in my ways I guess, but they've worked for me for nearly 60 years with sporting dog's so I see no reason to broaden my very narrow horizon's.

[welsh]

Several controlled studies have found that in training dogs to perform simple tasks, clickers had no advantage over voice markers or, in fact, over the use of food treats with no marker at all.

Dogs are uniquely attuned to human social cues, which may explain why clickers offer no great advantage in dog training according to those studies.

One article I recently read on clicker training pointed out that horse trainers are using clickers to train complex behaviours, while dog trainers are using them to teach simple things like "sit." We might see bigger advantages if using clickers to train more complicated tasks.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[shags]

Here's a video of a man who has Setter pups completely broke before they are a year old. If you know anything about Setters, you know that's really something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI-mZ9bA0A

I just throw the book into the kennel one night, and the next day training goes real well. Granted, a couple of my setters needed books with more pictures and fewer big words, but still...


Stoneface, what do that guy's older dogs look like in work? I'm not liking the lack of intensity in that young dog. Poor thing looks like it just wants to point the dang bird but the trainer comes along with the noisemaker and stuffing treats in the dog's mouth. I think maybe the dog would do better if not interefered with so much.

[Chukar12]

Welsh, what studies?

The use of a clicker is by no logic necessary for what we do. Timing and voice inflection are disadvantages if you observe the average trainer. Many are slow and subject to excitement and frustration that dogs may be confused by. Consider this, how do dogs communicate amongst themselves? How much emotion is involved?

Methodology evolves it doesn't render tried and true methodology irrelevant.

[welsh]

Welsh, what studies?

Most recently:
Chiandetti, C., Avella, S., Fongaro, E., & Cerri, F. (2016). Can clicker training facilitate conditioning in dogs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science (in press)
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/a ... references

It's not the first time researchers have found no difference in effectiveness between clicker & non-clicker training, contrary to the popular claim that clicker training is much quicker. And it makes intuitive sense ... how long does it really take to teach a dog to (for example) sit?

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[Chukar12]

It isn't how long it takes ... It is what you are trying to achieve. What you leave in and what you take out.

[Chukar12]

The link to the article doesn't work so I looked up the abstract. It simply states that in a simple behavior such as sitting it may not prove to be faster...and then goes on to state it's effectiveness in bridging which is exactly where the advantage occurs in practical application for our purposes

[welsh]

That's not what the abstract says. In fact, it doesn't say anything about how quickly the task was learned.
After reaching a learning criterion of 8 consecutive correct trials out of 10, each dog was tested for its ability to generalize the learned behaviour in two conditions, one similar and one different from the training condition.

All dogs in our study proved to be equally able to learn the novel behaviour and generalize it to different testing conditions, with no differences associated with the specific acoustic secondary reinforcer used or when the primary reinforcer was presented alone. Although it is always advisable to be cautious in drawing conclusions from non-significant results, here we discuss whether and when there might be a direct advantage in using the clicker method over other secondary or primary reinforcers to model dogs’ behaviour.

I wrote something about how quickly tasks are learned, because quicker learning is often cited as an advantage of clicker training. This particular study looked at how effectively dogs could generalize what they had learned, and found no significant difference.

The whole article is unfortunately behind a paywall. But this blog post gives a summary of the study:
http://www.companionanimalpsychology.co ... -good.html

The finding of this study is, in summary, that clickers have no special attributes that make them more effective reward markers, contrary to claims often made in favour of the clicker. And again, it's not the first such result -- it's not like this is a novel finding.

The upshot is that clickers work, and so do voice markers, and that both work about equally well. As I said before, we might see greater advantages to clickers if using them to train complex tasks, but this doesn't seem to be how dog trainers use them.

[Chukar12]

The link I found and there are many spoke of the alacrity just as you did. Within academia, especially applied in generalities there are terrible pitfalls. It is of little or no value having a discussion of experience and applied techniques with those who haven't the background for it. It does however add to the usefulness of the internet for the on line experts. The downside of course is a traceable history of the experience levels a person may banter with...it makes the whole process rather foolish.

[welsh]

LOL. Okay.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Chukar12]

You see... this is the utter disappointment of the web. Was this lightening dissemination of information meant to be a cut and paste exercise? Even the sociological experience is scripted. Who didn't see an LOL response coming? At days end, to train a dog for the average guy to the highest level of discipline and execution give me a trainer with Gonehuntin level experience over the guy that's tinkering with methodology like me to achieve an extreme application any day... But dang it, nobody should dismiss the second side of a discussion when they have only tried the first, and it's especially offensive when something someone read is misapplied to a discussion they don't really understand. Remember...welsh, my entry in this conversation came relevant to a video of a setter being clicked and treated on birds and I couldn't be more sure of what I saw there.

[Chukar12]

To paint a better picture outside the ridiculous argument, allow me to go back to the concept of behavior with a young dog in fact a puppy. Though I don't teach it in my dogs let's use sit. Traditionally and effectively you can push an eight week old pups hind end to the ground while giving a command. With enough repetition you will achieve your result. During this process you will be exerting physical dominance that the dog will resist, the dog will succumb with no real notable psychological baggage that puts him on a couch with Freud in his adulthood. However, if you contrast that with a dog that begins to sit and has been conditioned to recognize a click as a mark, you can allow a puppy to believe sitting is their idea. Sitting becomes a matter of pleasure done swiftly, crisply with an alertness expecting first recognition then reward. Like all child's games and child like rewards you will move away from the reward for expected tasks, and as you do the behavior remains, and if compulsion is required it is less than would have been required with compulsion only. I do believe as I said above that aversive methods come into play when maturity and discipline with prey are required. Continuing positive only methods become unreliable and retard adult behavior...imo

[gonehuntin']

to recognize a click as a mark, you can allow a puppy to believe sitting is their idea. Sitting becomes a matter of pleasure done swiftly, crisply with an alertness expecting first recognition then reward.

Geeze Chukar, you're one smart guy and even state things in terms I understand! I made this quote larger because I was afraid some would miss it. Anytime you can train a dog making them believe something was their idea, which you really have to think about to do, you are miles ahead of the game. Now later, it will PROBABLY have to be reinforced by pressure, but for now the pup learns and has fun. Later the enforced training will be much easier on both parties.

I came back and am editing this post because I think there's an important factor that many people don't realize when reading some of my posts. I think as a PROFESSIONAL, not as an amateur and I shouldn't do that. A Pro is given a dog for as short a time as possible and magnificent results are expected by the owner and well they should because they're spending a lot of money on dog. But because of that, the pro does not have time to train a dog letting the dog think it's "his idea". EVERYTHING the pro does is HIS idea and the dog must comply. That's a very, very important differentiation to realize. Here's where you come in. If you train that dog as a pup to HAPPILY stop on command, walk on a leash, come on command, into him to birds and teach him NO, when you give him to that pro he will be able to progress the pup faster and with far less pressure than getting pup as an untrained dog. ALL of the commands listed above except NO can be taught with NO pressure, making pup believe they were ALL HIS IDEA. Something for all to think about.

[cjhills]

I do a lot of treat training on my puppies, mostly here and kennel, also a little bit of whoa training. When the puppy sits or dives into the kennel when he sees a Milk Bone, I always wonder who is getting trained.......................Cj

[welsh]

Traditionally and effectively you can push an eight week old pups hind end to the ground while giving a command ... However, if you contrast that with a dog that begins to sit and has been conditioned to recognize a click as a mark, you can allow a puppy to believe sitting is their idea.

This is a false dilemma. The alternative to using a clicker as marker is not to force the pup's butt down. In fact, the research I mentioned has used voice as an alternative to the clicker. The question here is not whether positive reinforcement is more effective than aversive methods; the question is whether clickers are more effective than other methods when using positive reinforcement. The evidence suggests they are not.

There is a great deal of truth in GoneHuntin's remark that "a dog loves to hear a human voice and be caressed by the gentle touch." The rhetoric of clicker training is an example of behaviorism gone mad: we treat the dog as a stimulus-response machine, no different from an orca or a horse except perhaps in how quickly it can learn via operant conditioning. We ignore its motivations and we ignore the question of what the dog truly finds rewarding in the real world, where the stimulus-response dynamic is much more complicated than in a Skinner box.

The relevant fact about dogs is that their relationship to us is unique. This was the first domesticated species, and the evidence suggests that it became domesticated not through being tamed or bred by us, but by adapting to live in and around human communities and to respond to human social cues. Dogs have evolved to pay close attention to people. There is some research (Brian Hare) suggesting that dogs are superior to our closest primate relatives at reading human cues. They are socially attuned to us, and never more so than when we have taken the time to build relationships with them. Praise is rewarding in and of itself, because the social relationship has value to the dog. Indeed, one recent study undermined one of the core assumptions of the R+, clicker-training crowd, finding that dogs do not necessarily value food treats over praise.

This returns me to the specific study I cited earlier. The voice marker used as an alternative to the clicker was "Bravo," delivered in a flat tone. Within the context of the study this makes perfect sense, as the element of praise needs to be removed to test the idea that clickers are more effective because of their sound -- a favourite claim of clicker advocates. But in the real world, verbal praise is never delivered in a flat tone. The study Shags pointed to earlier applies here, also; praise consists of both words and tone, and words delivered in a flat tone are not rewarding. Were we to compare clicker training to training using both enthusiastic praise and food treats, would clicker training still prove equally effective? We can't answer that one, because it hasn't been tested yet. But it is quite true that praise has inherent value -- "a dog loves to hear a human voice and be caressed by the gentle touch" -- while the flat click of a clicker has value to a dog only when it has become a conditioned stimulus.

Clicker training has value in shaping more complex behaviors, but "sit" is a perfect example of a situation where it probably has no value at all. You can train a puppy to sit to a hand signal in minutes. It doesn't require a clicker or voice marker, and you don't need to touch the pup. It's a very simple operant learning task in which timing plays no real role. The pup will think sitting was his idea all along, regardless of the marker we use. The whole idea of clicker training isn't really in play. It does come into play if we want to train something more complex,and in that case, clicker training might be more effective -- depending on the circumstances.

On a final note, one thing to bear in mind about clicker training (and about all schools of thought in dog training, whether "dominance" or "R+") is that dog training is a business. People who are pushing ideas and approaches make money at it, and they have a clear interest in promoting their approaches as superior, often appropriating behavioral science to that end. It all ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

As for the "utter disappointment of the web": if you choose to engage in ad hominem attacks ("It is of little or no value having a discussion of experience and applied techniques with those who haven't the background for it. It does however add to the usefulness of the internet for the on line experts.") when confronted with evidence that undermines your cherished beliefs, you forfeit the right to whinge.

[gonehuntin']

Excellent Welsh. This thread is now getting most interesting and I can see both view points. What it may all come down to in the final analysis is which method better fits OUR style and not which is more beneficial to the dog. Keep in mind that I STRONGLY believe and practice "treating" young dogs but stop at the clicker.

I'm old and set in my ways but I have always believed and will always believe that the more HUMAN interaction we can have with our dogs, the better they will UNDERSTAND us. Throughout their short lives much of how they choose to interact with us will be more a product of voice inflection rather than a specific word. We can make a encouraging word debilitating and a corrective command pleasant. All with the inflection of our much mis-used voice. The more human interaction I can have with a dog and the less mechanical, the better I like it. I love the ecollar and the Astro and feel they are remarkably progressive steps but feel the clicker is a regressive step. Maybe I'm just too "bleep" old.

The other thing I've never understood about clicker training is it's short range. We work our bird dog's at 100-500 yards and I'm not sure the clicker is even audible at 100 on a calm day and I know it's not in a wind. So I deem it a puppy, short range training aid and don't feel that for sporting dog's, it can EVER be effective for advanced work. Please keep in mind this may be senility speaking.

[Chukar12]

Clickers cannot build relationships with animals, they only serve to preserve them. The positive only crowd is attempting to drive the agenda that would discredit or replace the practice. Our modern culture has a misplaced desire to make human and dog relationships equal. For the sake of the dog they should not be. GH spoke of the difference between professionals and amateurs, my belief is that this dynamic, in this demographic is the important message.
When I train with a close friend of mine who is a successful pro trainer and pointing dog trial handler, he will marvel at the ease by which he can handle dogs I train and start and their quick response to corrections. I marvel at his ability to react swiftly and decisively with dogs neither of us know by taking aggressive corrective actions in a manner I lack the confidence for. His experience gives him an edge. The inexperienced will risk detriment trying to emulate his response, we aren't that good.
Dogs don't see things like we do...they aren't looking forward to the Halloween party coming up that you bought the mane for to make them a lion. They live in the moment. Our emotional swings confuse them and in extreme cases create neurosis that duplicate the owners own social difficulties. So....a voice properly conveyed in the proper timing and tone for the situation is probably within immeasurable degrees of effectiveness of a clicker. What are the chances of that execution in the average experience level of a trainer who will handle half a dozen dogs in their life?
No, the more common scenario is inconsistent emotion and actions applied by the complex mathematical equation of multiple humans in varying states of emotion interacting with a dog constantly. That's reality for the amateur one or two dog hunt/companion owner. If you learn skills that separate the dangers of anthropomorphic interactions and focus on building behaviors consistently with an environment and tools that have measured purpose you can love and bond with your dog to the end of the earth and still have an animal that knows how to work and learn, and respects the relationship as one between master and dog.
I won't argue the effectiveness of touch and voice it's a tried and true theory. It's also a crutch, how well behaved are the dogs in your neighborhood, and are they touched, spoken to and loved on? Clicker training cannot be used for any advanced work with a dog that you expect to be reliable as a predator shaped to take a secondary role in the collection of game on a hunt. That will require aversive training, at least for any dog I would feed. For my purposes and examples that has never been the intent.

[welsh]

I won't argue the effectiveness of touch and voice it's a tried and true theory. It's also a crutch, how well behaved are the dogs in your neighborhood, and are they touched, spoken to and loved on?

Are they trained? The fact that a dog is spoken to, praised, and petted does not indicate it has been trained. Again, the research findings here are quite clear. Training a dog with a clicker is no more effective than training it with voice markers.

[gonehuntin']

Another excellent post Chukar. Intonation of the voice is everything. I hadn't thought before of how consistent the clicker is. Nice point. Maybe we should rename this thread, "Point-Counterpoint" !

[gonehuntin']

Welsh, I believe you also are correct BUT it depends on the voice inflection and this is what many people have a hard time with. A voice is like the electric collar. Without variable intensity it is devastating, with variable intensity it is a gently but persuasive tool.