# Bringing compulsion back...



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Had some interesting discussion today with a trainer who now practically specializes in rehabing food trained dogs. Many people in this country jumped on the foodie bandwagon when there was reaction to too much poorly done training. So, there are some people who find themselves in a bit of a bind when the dog comes to believe that it is simply performing for the delivery of a food bit!

Balanced training still has a bad name in many places. I think this is really unfortunate.

Now, this does not mean I believe that a " no food or toy" approach is one that is balanced either. I think the use of these rewards are of great benefit to training! But, somehow there is a way to use these along with motivating complusion that seems to bring about the most beautiful as well as reliable performances.

I am at a Sylvia Bishop Seminar and speaking with some participants. At first, I could not completely discern Sylvia 's approach. I do not understand all of its nuances, but can see its brilliance! Compulsion and correction are not bad words! They can be done in a manner that makes things clear and brings great drive from the dogs. When used in such a system, food and toys enhance but are not the foundation of the work. The British lady is bloody brilliant!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

That is not brilliance. Simply common sense.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

To me the best part of your post is "*makes things clear*". Some dogs learn very quickly, take training very seriously, and are naturally very easy to freeshape. Others may have all the drive in the world but are just screaming (sometimes literally) for you to show them what you want/don't want already!!!


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I was just talking to my trainer on Friday regarding when to introduce correction. She said that when the dog clearly understands what is expected of them and just decides to blow you off. Sounds fair and logical to me.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

I've been to Sylvia seminars several times, she's great! Have fun!! Do you have a working spot or are you auditing??


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Jax08 said:


> I was just talking to my trainer on Friday regarding when to introduce correction. She said that when the dog clearly understands what is expected of them and just decides to blow you off. Sounds fair and logical to me.


 To me this is not entirely accurate. For me it is just as important to tell a dog when he is wrong as it is to tell him when he is right.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Well, yes it is common sense. Sylvia uses lots of compulsion and no correction collars. It is pretty interesting.

We are auditing. There are times I wish I had a working slot. But, she has still helped us as have some of the "regular" attenders of her seminars. 

Sylvia would not wait so late to introduce compulsion. The little pups begin the method with early introduction. I would say it is not what I have traditionally seen as corrections. It sounds strange but it actually a rather gentle and fun system. Early conditioning to compulsion and physical handling. It is not like pulling the collar punch because the dog is wrong at all!


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Art - I am telling my dog when she's wrong but I"m not doing it with compulsion at this point. Telling her No and restarting her to teach her what I want is still telling her she is doing something wrong. When I was discussing with her when to introduce corrections, she didn't feel I was going to need to use a prong with her. An e-collar is way over the top for her and just shuts her down. She thinks that just a flat buckle collar is sufficient for my dog.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

To me compulsion is not just telling a dog when they are wrong. I've used -R to shape behaviors, especially behaviors that I use across disciplines and at home, behaviors that can be vital for safety in certain situations (the platz, for example). I do always pair -R with some form of reward and/or release, usually the dog sees it more as a release. For example if I've done a session involving a good bit of compulsion whether it be +P or -R, I tend to whip out a tug so the dog can unload, even though my usual reward is a ball at certain intervals or after the send-out. It means more to the dog to explode into the tug, "fight" me and win, and sit there holding the tug than happy-happy-joy-joy toy play or toy luring type training.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

Samba said:


> We are auditing. There are times I wish I had a working slot. But, she has still helped us as have some of the "regular" attenders of her seminars.
> 
> Sylvia would not wait so late to introduce compulsion. The little pups begin the method with early introduction. I would say it is not what I have traditionally seen as corrections. It sounds strange but it actually a rather gentle and fun system. Early conditioning to compulsion and physical handling. It is not like pulling the collar punch because the dog is wrong at all!


I've done both, working spot and audit....it doesn't really matter which, I can always get something out of her seminars!

This kind of compulsion can be started very early on....it's just information, given in a way that the dog should see as part of the game. Ideally you should have MORE dog after the correction, not less. It's a different way to train, one that I'm still trying to master.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

How and what type of compulsion does Sylvia use?


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Debbieg said:


> How and what type of compulsion does Sylvia use?


My question as well. Also, it sounds to me like people have different ideas about what compulsion is. Perhaps you could each briefly define what you mean by compulsion (with an example or two).


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

For instance, the set up for heeling, the dog is gently lifted up by the collar and front feet set square on the ground. It is not dramatic or punitive.

The heeling head position is compulsed. It s often held upward by the hands at the beginning of heeling. There is hands on bouncing of the dogs some to build attitude...bouncy, bouncy with the colllar, gently lift the dog and swing a half circle, set down and bouncy, bouncy again. Watch that attitude take off! Fun stuff. Heeling with collar jiggling, feathering with the hands. The hands remain soft in this. 

Really, not typical corrections for a mistake. But rather a way to physically communicate with the dog that gets them working with you and in a drivey state. Really, rather brilliant.

I would say it is the Bishop type compulsion!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

It is exciting, encouraging and helpful, hands on dog often, "compulsion" that is not punitive or punishment oriented. It is performed by a happy and energetic handler that is all about being for their dog.

Food and toys used a lot, but the handler is not just a deliverer of an item or tidbit for a correct behavior.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

Samba said:


> It is exciting, encouraging and helpful, hands on dog often, "compulsion" that is not punitive or punishment oriented. It is performed by a happy and energetic handler that is all about being for their dog.
> 
> Food and toys used a lot, but the handler is not just a deliverer of an item or tidbit for a correct behavior.


YES, exactly!

Example of a Sylvia-type correction: Hands-on collar pops are done to correct lack of effort....these are taught first, the dogs are taught to bounce up and forward with the pop and spin back to you for a tug. Hard to explain. But this is a correction that brings a dog UP as opposed to a correction that makes a dog back off.

Sorry, I'm not making much sense, too tired....outdoor obedience trial today, in the ice storm before the snow really got started. I'm not particularly coherent at the moment!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Because she is British, Pooh came to mind. A quote from Tigger may describe Sylvia's compulsive training..."It's bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun,fun".


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I have been training the way you are describing, ( probably with some slight differences), for 35 years. You do not need to teach the dog what you want first, the corrections are not anything a normal dog should not be able to handle and they are just that, corrections, not punishment. It is designed to show the dog what you want in conjunction with encouragement, enthusiasm, praise etc. I teach the sit at the same time I teach the heeling by using my hand on the dogs jaw to guide them into a straight sit as I stop. The trick is the praise, enthusiasm and encouragement at almost the same time the corrections are happening. There is a little bit of spinning plates feel to it because you are doing so many things at almost the same time. If you are boring or an introvert, this method probably won't work for you. 

Most people doing SchH now train in a very quiet fashion and they look like they are walking on egg shells. This creates more of a powerful type heeling or prancing. I personally, always teach heeling first since when I am done, I have laid the groundwork for the rest of the training. Also, when I am done, the dog is actually trained.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, that is it! When trying to "learn it", you will not be able to keep all the plates spinning. 

A nice fellow today was quiet, somewhat slow and restricted in manner. Sylvia's comment was something like, "oh dear, you're being too much like a man!". Many dogs today would have been better if the handlers could have been more energetic and enthusiastic. Of course difficult when trying to learn, listen to an accent and be in front of people!

The dogs really enjoy and are excited by this and yet still" "feel" something of the have to nature of it all. It works really well and the handler is the main feature, so not so much concern for weaning off treats, toys, etc. There are not bribes in this work, but rewards to the dog for a job well done.

The dogs end up trained, they have respect for and a good relationship with their handler. It is beyond "tricks for treats".


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Well, what it is, and the reason you do not get an unhappy dog with the corrections, is because you are channeling any stress created by the correction into the handler with the praise, excitement etc. That's why the handler must be that way or the dog thinks too long about the correction.

I train all my training client's dogs this way but during our sessions, I do the training for the heeling for the first three or four sessions and the owner is not allowed to practice or work on it until I get it pretty set in the dog. Then, I hand the dog off to them and am there teaching the handler how to spin plates with a dog that is mostly trained. Works much better that way and easier for the people to get the hang of it.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

Samba said:


> Because she is British, Pooh came to mind. A quote from Tigger may describe Sylvia's compulsive training..."It's bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy, fun, fun, fun, fun,fun".


:wub::wub::wub::wub::wub:


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I have not seen any "corrections" that were like "No" or "pop, you're wrong". This is not the way information is delivered. It is more like a happy, "oh, dear, now you.ve goofed it up. Let me help you. Then, leading with motivationl collar bounces and/or placement. Then a very happy congratulations! "Now you've got it, lad! And a happy slap to the side and release to play.Corrections do not punish, rather they make right.

I have never had much luck with what I think of as traditional correcting. People are often quiet when they do it and the dog can come to distrust quietness. I don 't think that is too good as in competition one may be not be blathering away, so quiet needs to imply correctness. It can have fall out in performance that really looks bad. The handler as a reward provider, toy launcher, pez dispenser has proven to me to be problematic also. 

I have seen Anne train, and I recognized the similarities with Sylvia's approach. Unfortunately, I did not have much time or ability to learn at that point. This type of training is harder for me to grasp as it is not so much "do this 1, 2,3 method" but rather "be this to your dog in training". 

Sylvia won Crufts obed with a German Shepherd Dog. In a sport dominated by BCs, I find that impressive.

Of course, Sylvia begins working with puppies early on with the handling and fun in training. But, as Anne talked about, the corrections used are not something any normal dog can't handle even without the early introduction. We have dogs here from Papillions to Newfies.


----------



## debbiebrown (Apr 13, 2002)

i think most dogs work well just on happy praise alone...........you can see a huge difference with the handlers motivation in that area.........

postive corrections are needed in order to give the dog a clear understanding of what you want. it has to be done right so the dog is not confused.......timing is everything...........


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

This is interesting--thanks for the explanations. Do you know of any videos that illustrate this type of training in action? 

Especially enlightening is understanding that it is more about correcting position and not punishment. I think compulsion automatically equals punishment and a stern style of training in a lot of people's minds. I certainly don't think of compulsion training as fun for the dog or the handler but obviously this is the intention of the approach you all are describing.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Vandal said:


> The trick is the praise, enthusiasm and encouragement at almost the same time the corrections are happening. There is a little bit of spinning plates feel to it because you are doing so many things at almost the same time. If you are boring or an introvert, this method probably won't work for you.
> .


After years of being taught many different methods from the Monks to positive only, I have finally learned to train this way. I am an introvert, so it was a stretch for me but now I love it, and by their responses, so does Benny, Jake and Annie, my sons Pit. Takes lots of energy and enthusiasm and even some humor!. My family, all quite reserved, thinks I am a bit nuts :laugh: 

I never thought of this type of training as compulsion.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

I'd like to see a video too. Always like to look at the different training methods.

I'm wondering if this is similiar to the video someone posted a while ago with a golden retriever training. The handler was using something similiar to what you are describing as collar bounces to get the dog to prance while heeling.


----------



## Gmthrust (Mar 3, 2010)

Not entirely sure but I'm thinking this is the kind of training that I did with Ben, my very first pure GSD ....a long time ago in a far away land. He, to me, was everything.

Seems now-a-days some folks'll sneer and call ya a Neanderthal. lol.

What an Excellent thread......and thanks for posting about it.:doggieplayball:


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

It's a fun and playful way to train....let's say the dog, for example, breaks a stay/wait and moves out of position. Sylvia moves towards the dog, head tilted to the side and eyes slightly squinty..."Don't youuuu cheat!" in a playful voice, pointing at the dog. Hands in the collar and bounces the dog back to a sit. Leaves again, when the dog holds the sit she returns to them, "AREN'T you clever! WOO!" smack on the chest and releases the dog to a tug that was hidden until after the release. Tugs just appear at random times.

Another thing she says is that if the dog is doing something you don't want them to do (for example, jumping up on the handler) help them do it a bunch of times and they might decide they don't want to do that after all! For example, I've seen her take a dog that's jumping on her (picture a golden, that's where I've seen her do this) and put her hands in the collar...."OH do you want to JUMP? Then let's JUMP! WOO! WOO! Come on dear, JUMP!" And she stands there jumping with the dog, making the dog jump with her. It's funny, we're talking about a great-grandmother here, she puts us all to shame with her energy. Anyway after several jumps, all of a sudden the dog decides maybe he really DOESN'T want to jump, but she makes him jump several more times. It works, I've done that with student's dogs that want to maul me.

I think the accent makes it sound more playful to us, we all end up imitating her


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Not too long ago, I posted a video of B. Carlsen and her Golden. She has learned from Sylvia, I am pretty sure. 

Sylvia has a several videos for sale and a new one coming out in January. I have never seen anyone do her techniques better than she does. Sort of like no one does Adlerian or Rogerian therapy better than Adler or Rogers. 

We are going to really try to grok her techniques though. Hoping this will improve our game!


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Samba said:


> Had some interesting discussion today with a trainer who now practically specializes in rehabing food trained dogs.


 This sorta makes me laugh. "Rehabbing food trained dogs"? I guess I could say I spend my time at our training club attempting to "rehab" dogs trained to heel (supposedly) using leash corrections 

To be fair, the training isn't really "good" and neither is all training based on usinf food or toys as motivation. That doesn't mean it's all done so poorly though. 

Sylvia Bishop has been to our training club multiple times but I've never gone to her seminars. To be honest, I have to be pretty interested in someone to go to a seminar at this point and I don't think I could find much about her methods one way or another. Everything was sort of vague. Like I just tried googling her and someone blogged about her seminar saying it "was amazing" and "she taught a 10 week old Golden to watch her". Well that's cool and all but not particularly awe-inspiring enough for me to shell out $200-300 

I'm still not entirely clear on her methods. It sounds like she using a lot of physical "molding" but is also using a lot of reward/motivation in the form of play?


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

I've been to a lot of seminars.....Sylvia is one of the few I've seen several times. I've also seen Linda Koutsky several times, she has studied Sylvia for years and I think she "gets it." Many other really fine trainers have worked with Sylvia, like Terri Arnold and Celeste Meade. I figure they all know things I don't know, and that's why I go to seminars. You can always pick something up.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

The issues with food training that can crop up have to do with the marker and food reward for performance of a behavior. Sure this has to be faded, but when training and working for high level of competiiptive performance this can become problematic. There ends up being a fair amount of behavior performances paired with food reward. The dog can come to expect this to be part of the picture. Often the dogs do well in the lower level classes but then tend to quit with more exhibiting. It is a real phenomenon. These are the performance dogs who end up needing the picture rehabbed. The most successful food trained dogs I have seen perform are not fed any other time than in training. Even some of these dogs are subject to performance issues the more they show also. While poor compulsion training is poor training and can result in issues in competition, that does not mean the behavior=food method is not without pitfallls. A person whose performance dog gets stuck because of this may look for assistance out of this situation.

Of course there was a lot of food used by Sylvia. But, it is different from the marker/food routine that I have seen quite a bit. The thing I noticed most about the trainers using Sylvia's methods is that most people are too inhibited to be the energy and unpredictability that is needed. The handler has to be genuine and effusive in praise. Ha, the Brittish accent does seem to add to the fun of it. As we were watching we laughed that dogs seems particularly attuned to The King's English! Of course, it actually was the tone and energy used. The unpredictability of when you were going to be grabbed and engaged in arousing play kept the dogs engaged. Dogs are very physical animals and they do seem to understand this system of physicality and really love it.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Samba said:


> The most successful food trained dogs I have seen perform are not fed any other time than in training.



Samba are you saying that these dogs never get to just sit and enjoy a bowl of food? That they only get to eat as part of a training session? That sounds like abuse to me.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

DunRingill said:


> I've been to a lot of seminars.....Sylvia is one of the few I've seen several times. I've also seen Linda Koutsky several times, she has studied Sylvia for years and I think she "gets it." Many other really fine trainers have worked with Sylvia, like Terri Arnold and Celeste Meade. I figure they all know things I don't know, and that's why I go to seminars. You can always pick something up.


 It's funny - the only video I could fin showing any Sylvia Bishop method was a nose bridge one. Figured Celeste Meade must've gotten that from her! Do you find Sylvia and Celeste's methods similar all around?




Samba said:


> The issues with food training that can crop up have to do with the marker and food reward for performance of a behavior. Sure this has to be faded, but when training and working for high level of competiiptive performance this can become problematic.


 I dunno, my dog got his CD with scores in the 190s and I never had any trouble transitioning him fro training to ring. Also an RA and part of an RE (just haven't entered him again yet to finish it) with all pretty good scores - a couple 100s and I think the lowest was a 90 or 91 due to handler error. Although Rally is pretty easy compared to regular obedience . I actually don't really train in competition obedience all that much, if I put more effort into it I think he'd have even better scores. I mostly do it for fun - LOL there's something you don't generally hear people say  So it wasn't really "hard" to train him to his level of reliability. He should be going in for a CDX soon. We've had some hold ups with it but not at all "food training" related. He's not always a good jumper and especially not carrying something, so I've had to pretty much retrain him to jump with holding something starting with 8" jumps and a toy. We're almost there though, up to 16" obedience jump and his dumbbell now. I probably could have fixed the problem a lot quicker but again, I don't really practice competition obedience on a regular basis.

Honestly, he's my first really good obedience dog and the first that I didn't train with compulsion. My first obedience dog was pretty typical of what I see from compulsion trained dogs in my area - didn't understand what heel position was, lagged, needed "reminders" (collar corrections), etc. My second I trained with food and correction and he was a much better dog overall but unreliable. When he was at his best, his heeling was beautiful but it was always inconsistent at trials. His stays were inconsistent as well. You'd have probably looked at him and thought he was a food trained dog who needed "rehabbed" but the truth was, I was a food/toy trainer who needed more knowledge. 

I know a CD isn't a big title though so I will mentioned that I at least one person (Denise Fenzi) has gotten an OTCH on a dog trained without compulsion and a few UDXs and her students are titling their dogs in upper levels too. So it is certainly possible 



Samba said:


> There ends up being a fair amount of behavior performances paired with food reward. The dog can come to expect this to be part of the picture. Often the dogs do well in the lower level classes but then tend to quit with more exhibiting. It is a real phenomenon.


I can say the same about dogs trained with any method. Certainly, I've seen a good number of compulsion trained dogs who fall part in the ring.



Samba said:


> These are the performance dogs who end up needing the picture rehabbed. The most successful food trained dogs I have seen perform are not fed any other time than in training.


 Hasn't been my experience. I don't have the time to devote to that sort of thing LOL My dogs work for there dinner sometimes and sometimes not. 



Samba said:


> Even some of these dogs are subject to performance issues the more they show also. While poor compulsion training is poor training and can result in issues in competition, that does not mean the behavior=food method is not without pitfallls. A person whose performance dog gets stuck because of this may look for assistance out of this situation.


 Or while poor use of food in training is poor training and can result in issues in competition, that does not mean that compulsion is not without pitfallls. 



Samba said:


> Of course there was a lot of food used by Sylvia. But, it is different from the marker/food routine that I have seen quite a bit. The thing I noticed most about the trainers using Sylvia's methods is that most people are too inhibited to be the energy and unpredictability that is needed. The handler has to be genuine and effusive in praise. Ha, the Brittish accent does seem to add to the fun of it. As we were watching we laughed that dogs seems particularly attuned to The King's English! Of course, it actually was the tone and energy used. The unpredictability of when you were going to be grabbed and engaged in arousing play kept the dogs engaged. Dogs are very physical animals and they do seem to understand this system of physicality and really love it.


 It sounds to me that it's not so much that she's using compulsion as she is really good at using play as a motivator. Actually I do think using play is important to successfully training a dog to competition levels with motivational training.




Debbieg said:


> Samba are you saying that these dogs never get to just sit and enjoy a bowl of food? That they only get to eat as part of a training session? That sounds like abuse to me.


 Actually dogs would be better off if people made them work for their food. Most dogs are pretty under-stimulated and most actually really enjoy working for food.

And I dunno about your dogs but mine never "sit and enjoy a bowl of food" LOL Really, dogs and people are different like that


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

Debbieg said:


> Samba are you saying that these dogs never get to just sit and enjoy a bowl of food? That they only get to eat as part of a training session? *That sounds like abuse to me*.


I think dogs trained like this, all food from handler, tend to have the problem of obesity rather than 'abuse' type symptoms. It's to help start getting dogs attune to their owner in a good and positive way. Tons of food/treats all thru out the day.

Compared to sitting down to a bowl of food twice a day with the same (probably less  ) amount of food total... :wub:

Also this is like ALL FOOD TRAINING is supposed to be, just one step. You start with all food from owner/handler, then when the bond is formed, move onto the next steps (which means no longer is all food coming from the handler and RANDOM reinforcement with the treats/food start up... PLUS usually adding more praise/toys to the mix).

The big mistake most handlers do is they get the treat/reward all the time, but then want to immediately move to the 'never treat ever' and wonder why the confused dog shuts down and starts to ignore them. (my dog will only work for treats).

Problem is you need to PROGRESS with the training and with the when/how you give rewards. So moving to the 'random' reinforcement and then more to the praise/toys and having more time between rewards (random!) is key and usually messed up. :wild:


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

AgileGSD said:


> It's funny - the only video I could fin showing any Sylvia Bishop method was a nose bridge one. Figured Celeste Meade must've gotten that from her! Do you find Sylvia and Celeste's methods similar all around?


There are definitely some similarities! But I haven't actually trained with Celeste in quite a few years, I think she's taken things in her own direction but still has Sylvia influences. 



> I know a CD isn't a big title though so I will mentioned that I at least one person (Denise Fenzi) has gotten an OTCH on a dog trained without compulsion and a few UDXs and her students are titling their dogs in upper levels too. So it is certainly possible


No, she doesn't use collar pops, at least not anymore from what I've heard. But she certainly doesn't stand there like a spectator and let her dogs make mistakes, she fixes things. Is it a correction? Sure. Is there any compulsion? Dunno! She does a lot of training without a leash, but does she do any hands on? I'll have a better idea after the seminar Bunny and I will be going to in December.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

It is the progression that is often lost or does not work well for particular dogs.

If someone has visions of correction collars on to cause pain or digs even being told "no" in exercises, they would be completely off the mark! The best part about it us the dogs just bloom under this work in a way they do not in food training. If one is astute, they can tell when their dog is engaged with sll if its being and power. Sylvia talks about now seeing the power in the dog's work. Yes, the collar is used a lot. A leash or two also. Yhere is plenty of hands on guiding of the dog also. Then there is the surprise game, the bounce and carry, the game of tug! My dogs are so much more in this training that it is amazing. Course, one will sweat and sound absolutely daft when doing it!

Yes, collar pops are used. I have already trained Hogan to heel using collar pops. If anyone thinks he finds this depressing or painful, they would be incorrect. All collar motivation is not created equal! This is where people miss the mark in understanding. Putting a dog in heel position, lifting its muzzle, bouncing it out....I would call that compulsion. The dog is made to do every bit of by the handler! Oh but watch my Soleil come alive with her bouncy, bouncy, bouncy!!

Sylvia has used the nose bridge for decades, yes. The pops of course, are motivational but there is an element of compulsion, isn't there?


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

AgileGSD said:


> Actually dogs would be better off if people made them work for their food. Most dogs are pretty under-stimulated and most actually really enjoy working for food.
> 
> And I dunno about your dogs but mine never "sit and enjoy a bowl of food" LOL Really, dogs and people are different like that


 
My dog sure does seem to enjoy having his raw chicken quarter 

I do use food as well as praise, play session, as rewards, but just can't imagine having a dog work for every bite and see where it could lead to obesity. It also seems unbalanced to me. Then again I have never trained to a high level as many of you. It is great to have a forum where we can learn so many different ways so we can find what works best for us with our particular dog. For us the reward whether it be praise, or food needs to be done with enthusiasm. This has helped me teach Benny not just basic obedience but some service tasks, like picking up and bringing dropped objects, ( keys water bottles, wallets ect) bracing me when I get up, opening the fridge.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

Thanks for this thread. It has helped me understand what my trainer has been telling me. She also uses little motivational pops on the collar, but she doesn't include the high level of praise.

I have always been a "black and white" trainer. Dogs don't get grey very well so I use food to teach and corrections with praise to fix. This has worked for me and my dogs, at least so far. I am always open to change.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Now watching a video of Sylvia working with A 13 week old puppy. Brilliant! Leash and collar on a lot. All commands are "taught" while playing with the pup. Toy is used ..ball rolls and puppy runs for it "Go out". "what 's this" as she points to food bit in mouth becomes "Watch" later. Recall, down, sit,...all labelled in play. She works to keep puppy balanced on food and toy. She labels almost everything the pup dors. It is very active, very enhusiastic interaction. Just a short puppy session. But filled with praise nd labelling. She us as quick as the puppy...short, happy quick sesions. Next she will begin picking up te puppy and placing it in heel position. Lots of physical placement rather than so much luring. It is this hands on that is different from many trainers I see. I am thinking it is important in some ways. Also, Sylvia the uses the collar and leash as extensions of her arm and hands. These tools perform the same functions. 

We were often told not to touch the dog or place it. I am not sure where that came from? Fear of oposition? I personally an liiking it.

Some of her dogs get wound up with the touching based on their nature. She has to be more careful and quiet with them and the physical touching.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Debbieg said:


> Samba are you saying that these dogs never get to just sit and enjoy a bowl of food? That they only get to eat as part of a training session? That sounds like abuse to me.


Yes. Many of these dogs work for their food. Also, being crated or kenneled except for when working is not uncommon.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

One thing I have always felt was that ALL training is compulsive in nature. I feel this way because whether we use food or pops, or jerks or ear pinches, we are still compelling dogs to do something they would not have thought to do themselves. My dog is most likely not going to go out and decide to learn to retrieve a dumbbell and present at front for me on his own. 

That said, some compulsion can be punishing. Most compulsion, properly used is beneficial. I have always defined a correction as "information to the dog" about what it has done right and what it has done wrong.

Bobbie Anderson trains much like Sylvia Bishop. I love Bobbie's puppy training book.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

lhczth said:


> Yes. Many of these dogs work for their food. Also, being crated or kenneled except for when working is not uncommon.


 Not uncommon with who?

And really, this approach isn't exclusive to positive trainers wither. Actually, I think it seems most widespread with protection sport people. But i wouldn't say it's "common" with them either. 



Samba said:


> It is the progression that is often lost or does not work well for particular dogs.


 This is often an issue people have with improper use of any method. It is not exclusive to positive training. Personally, I think it's a mistake to only ever use food and use it predictably then suddenly try to trial the dog. Mixing up the rewards and when they occur is what builds reliability. Just giving the dog treats after every exercise then trialing is not going to be effective with most dogs. 



DunRingill said:


> No, she doesn't use collar pops, at least not anymore from what I've heard. But she certainly doesn't stand there like a spectator and let her dogs make mistakes, she fixes things.


 I don't think any successful trainers just stand around and let dogs repeat mistakes, regardless of method 



DunRingill said:


> Is it a correction? Sure. Is there any compulsion? Dunno! She does a lot of training without a leash, but does she do any hands on? I'll have a better idea after the seminar Bunny and I will be going to in December.


 Cool! I hope you post a review! She did one in Ohio this weekend and I wish I could have made it.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

lhczth said:


> Yes. Many of these dogs work for their food. Also, being crated or kenneled except for when working is not uncommon.


That sounds like slavery to me! I find it hard to believe that this is what it takes to train to high levels and if it is it is not for me. I want my dog to be a canine companion part of the family. They are such wonderful dogs, who love to be with their human. They have too short lives to spend kenneled and working for every bite of food. 

I had never heard of Sylvia Bishop before this thread and she sounds like someone I would love to learn from. I am going to put her some of her materials on my Christmas list.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Debbieg said:


> That sounds like slavery to me! I find it hard to believe that this is what it takes to train to high levels and if it is it is not for me. I want my dog to be a canine companion part of the family. They are such wonderful dogs, who love to be with their human. They have too short lives to spend kenneled and working for every bite of food.


 Sure some people train their dogs that way but it's hardly the norm IME. I'm still not quite sure why you find it so bad for dogs to work for their food. It pretty much guarantees the dog is being worked with every day and that sort of interaction is actually enjoyable for most dogs.

This is the trainer I mentioned earlier, Denise Fenzi's blog. Successful positive trainer in competition obedience. She is currently training a puppy, so lots of videos and entries that show and talk about how her pups are raised. Also entries on her other dogs and some client dogs. Denise Fenzi


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Debbieg said:


> That sounds like slavery to me! .


 
Humanizing dogs much? Food is food for them, I'm sorry.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

GSDElsa said:


> Humanizing dogs much? Food is food for them, I'm sorry.



I did not say working for food is slavery, just that I disagree for having to work for each bite. I can see doing this for a time during training as Maggie Rose Lee said. 

I do think it sad for a GSD to be kept kenneled except when working. Is that humanizing ? Every GSD I have had was bonded to me and wanted to be with me, accompany me. I trained them not so much for performance as to have a companion that could go hiking swimming, around town as we did errands, visit hospitals. Maybe this is humanizing by some standards, but to me it is just treating me dog as a *canine* friend and family member.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I agree with Debbie. I think it is easy for people to lose sight of things while in pursuit of titles etc. I have watched this come about in SchH , so, I know it happens. Can't speak to the other venues but people are people and some of them are not "dog people" .....but have a dog anyway.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

I would not limit my dog to living in a kennel either. I am not that intersted in competing at high levels and y dogs are companions first. 

However, dogs do learn better when they have a chance to chill out and reflect. I usually put my dogs up either in a crate or in the back of the car after we train. They are not there that long but it gives them chance to think about what they learned.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Ditto Kathy. It takes me 1.5-3 hours one way to get to/from Schutzhund (depending on which location) so that is my dog's time to chill out. By the time we get home, they fly out of the back of the van and are ready to go again!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I would like to have the dogs do well in competition. My training level is not stupendous though, so I keep trying to get better. I can Not say that all the dogs are out here, ad lib. They take turns with being the dog loose in the house with me. 

They main people I have seen criticize my keeping are people whose dogs only see the inside of their house and yard for years! Wow, I can not imagine that! Three dogs to the city with me all weekend. Last night one to Trick or Trunk event. Today, 4 out to the country to train in some wide open spaces. Feed from a bowl. I do it sometimes, but that is when I am not getting to training as much. Hogan gets his meals at the end of his track as much as possible as I am concentrating on his tracking right now.

I have a female who was trained a lot with positive methods. She played out quickly in the ring when she realized that was not a very rewarding place! From high in trial to now not working in the ring! It is not easy for me to keep a dog tuned up for repeated competition. If anyone has secrets to that, I would appreciate! Many people I know will get another dog if one does not hold up well....due towork ethic or nerves or not a fit for training method. 

I saw one of the top obedience dogs perform. More OTCH points than you can dream of, a travel home to get to the next show for many weeks on end. I know the training on the dog involved some sort of compulsion, at times. I have seen food and toy trained dogs score high. I can occassionally get a high score too. But, how to keep a dog going, not burning out, not succumbing to pressure still eludes me!


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Liesje said:


> Ditto Kathy. It takes me 1.5-3 hours one way to get to/from Schutzhund (depending on which location) so that is my dog's time to chill out. By the time we get home, they fly out of the back of the van and are ready to go again!


 
I also agree. Benny's crate is in the living room and after a long training and play session he often noses it open and goes in by himself to chill It is his personal space where he does not get asked to move, worry about being stepped on. A short time later he is out and ready to go again.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

From what I'm reading here, it seems as though some people are using "compulsion" and "correction" interchangeably, but, Samba, that's not what I'm taking away from what you're saying. Am I right?


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Hmmmm. Well, I do think I am speaking of them interchangably myself. I think there are so many ways to perform compulsion or correction that these words are almost meaningless unless what is meant by them is defined. I might not have a good working definition of them myself!

Okay, my dog gets out of heel position. Then, I happily say, Soleil, where's your heelwork??  Next, I guide her into heel with the leash and collar with steady pressure. Once there, "Well, done! There's your heelwork!! Good show!! Clap her side and release backward for a tuggy or something fun. 

To me, the dog has been compulsed and corrected. She was made to be correct. That is what I think of as a correction... to make something right. Not to punish something wrong! The method used to correct was compulsion with the collar and lead. The energy and praise and play that are put into this scenario keep the dog from loading up with stress. The attitude of the handler is not one of consternation, but of merry surprise that the dog has made a booboo.

If one is thinking of a quiet handler whose dog gets out of position and the handler then applies a jerk to the leash and collar then continues on afterwards, then that is a different picture. It is still one of correction isn't it? Well, I might define that as punishment rather than correction. But you can see that these words mean different training pictures to different people depending on how the handler is actually working with the dog.

I am saying here that to me, compulsion and correction does not deserve the bad name it has gotten. It can make a dog very good at its performance. It can result in a happy and powerful obedience routine. Just because people do it badly is not a reason to loose the lead and bring on positive only admonitions. While I appreciate the ideas of positive training, it seems to have been an unbalanced response to already unbalanced training.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

To me "compulsion" includes corrections/punishments but is not limited to the positive punishment quadrant. I think it also includes negative reinforcement and I guess these more physical forms of luring or setting the dog in position like what is being described here, since the dog doesn't really have a choice in the matter I suppose it falls under "compulsion".

I think the labels get dangerous because very few people ever train 100% one or the other. When I'm using -R or "escape training" it is always paired with a marker, a release, and a reward or a way to de-stress. So am I doing compulsion training or positive training....??? When people say "positive training" I think they often mean positive-only, but the flip-side is that when people say "compulsion" they are not referring exclusively to punishment.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Though maybe not how others use the terms, for me compulsion is training through use of physical corrections. The forced retrieve is a compulsion based exercise. Just using corrections as part of your training program (and corrections can be anything from a jerk on the collar to withholding a reward) is not training with compulsion.

On another note, having a dog work for his food is not my issue. My issue is that when these dogs are not working as expected they often go hungry until they are more willing to comply. This can mean a dog sometimes going for days without eating. And in the competition world (yes, in the AKC world too) this is far more common than most people realize.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

My defintion of compulsion and correction is similar to as Samba described. it is not punishment but a showing the dog he did something wrong, getting him toi do it right and the rewarding with lots of praise, or a game or food.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Samba said:


> Yes, that is it! When trying to "learn it", you will not be able to keep all the plates spinning.
> 
> A nice fellow today was quiet, somewhat slow and restricted in manner. Sylvia's comment was something like, *"oh dear, you're being too much like a man!"*. Many dogs today would have been better if the handlers could have been more energetic and enthusiastic. Of course difficult when trying to learn, listen to an accent and be in front of people!
> 
> ...


Oh dear, THAT is my problem.
I wonder if I should be more like a woman. Maybe I would be a better trainer. Because, I admit, I am horrible at it. I am low-key and I seldom correct. If my dog blows me off I just go do something else.
Doesn't look promising..........


----------



## Witz (Feb 28, 2011)

This debate will go on forever as to the definition of compulsion vs correction. To me compulsion can be defined as the unfair treatment of an animal who has not been taught what is expected and is expected to behave in a certain way thru unreasonable or abusive force. 

I work with a guy who stated that he was asked to help "train" a golden who has issues in terms of behavior. His response was that the owner just does know how to "crackem". I strongly suggested that if the dog does not know what is expected that "cracking him" could cause more harm then good. He looked at me with a stare, like I have no idea what I am talking about. 

Corrections are applied when you are comfortable that the dog has a general idea what is expected of them and makes an independent decision to ignore. How that correction is applied has to take into account multiple factors and actions, which has been discussed.

I am training my 8 month old in Schutzhund. He has solid nerve and has been trained with markers, food and toys. He has a strong and resilent personality and when in drive during bitework, is sometimes so focused on the helper that he does not even know I am there. So we do some basic obedience to get him back on me. To do this he needs some leash snaps to collect his head. It took only 2 sessions for him to get the idea that when I give him a command he needs to pay attention. He knows what heel/fuss means. I can now heel him, put him in a sit or down position. He will now look to me for the "OK" to refocus on what he really wants and that is to bite the guy with the sleeve, which is his reward.

If an untrained eye witnessed the exercise they may say that I was being abusive or using to much compulsion. The reality is that there are different dogs and level of the dog's trained knowledge. The good trainer understands what they have in a particular dog and base their actions on a reasonable level of response to a situation that needs to change.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

well, think of it like acting class. You have to learn how to act to train a dog unless it just comes to you naturally. It is not natural to many people. Watch some Monty Python. Talk in a falsetto voice. See how many walks you can do to get yourself into the Ministry of Funny Walks. People should look at you and wonder if you have forgotten your meds! Then, you can begin to entertain your dog a bit in training! Have to say it is an evolution. I have had many people refuse to try to be fun, silly, UNINHIBITED and playful with their dogs. Training is limited by our ability to be what our dog needs us to be.
I looked at the four quadrants of operant conditioning. Can't really figure out where to place this training that is a general milieu. It is not easy for me to break it into its parts. 
What I am seeing is that the dogs love it! Attitude fantastic. I think I am going to forget about OC definitions, markers, clickers, pinch collars,corrections and just train the dog. I mean, a lot of this theory can just get one all balled up! 
I am not really able to analyze it! So back to the collar, leash the talking, the placing the dog in heel, the holding the head up physically in position.... And of course, the funny talk... "There you go, lass! Aren't you clever! Well, done!!! Where's your down? Don't you cheat!" Butt tag, run and play!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Interesting discussion! I've read or skimmed most of the posts so far, and what's most apparent is that there are so many different definitions of the term compulsion that it's not always easy to tell if you agree or disagree with someone without knowing what THEY mean by the term.

This is also what *I* think of when someone talks about compulsion - a correction can be anything, but compulsion seems to imply some sort of physical force, (at least to ME) and whether or not it's totally accurate, I tend think of that force as being generally something unpleasant, either negative reinforcement or positive punishment:



lhczth said:


> Though maybe not how others use the terms, for me compulsion is training through use of physical corrections. The forced retrieve is a compulsion based exercise. Just using corrections as part of your training program (and corrections can be anything from a jerk on the collar to withholding a reward) is not training with compulsion.


Now this, I wouldn't think of as compulsion, although there is an element of physical force involved, by guiding the dog with leash pressure: 



Samba said:


> Okay, my dog gets out of heel position. Then, I happily say, Soleil, where's your heelwork??  Next, I guide her into heel with the leash and collar with steady pressure. Once there, "Well, done! There's your heelwork!! Good show!! Clap her side and release backward for a tuggy or something fun.


What's confusing about this is that although there's a correction into heel position, the attitude and demeanor of the handler is very upbeat and encouraging, almost, dare I say it - motivational! :laugh: And there's no negative stimulus to avoid, or punishment for non-compliance, the dog is simply put back in place and then enthusiastically praised. That's kinda "positive"!


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Samba said:


> I have a female who was trained a lot with positive methods. She played out quickly in the ring when she realized that was not a very rewarding place! From high in trial to now not working in the ring! It is not easy for me to keep a dog tuned up for repeated competition. If anyone has secrets to that, I would appreciate! Many people I know will get another dog if one does not hold up well....due towork ethic or nerves or not a fit for training method.


 I think one of the biggest issues people have with the food or toy training and ring performance is that you can only trick the dog into believing you have the reward in the ring so many times. There has to be value built into play rewards which you can do between exercises and the behaviors themselves or the dog will not hold up in competition. 

Of course, one of the biggest issues with compulsion training is that you can only trick the dog into believing you can correct them in the ring so many times. The term ringwise has been around since long before positive methods were being used 

It seems that building reliability has always been the hard part of training for competition.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, the hard part is maintaining ring performance. I can probably work to get a dog through for a title, but how do people that OTCH work or SchH III numerous times. Difficult for me.

With Sylvia, the work is compulsed a lot. The dog is helped a lot. She did mention that people here seem to go into competition too soon with their dogs. She sets dogs up physically a great deal. Hopefully, she will stay healthy and I can see her again in Spring.

I worked with Hogan today some. I practiced physically moving him into heel posistion. The hand in collar supporting his head tlited up. Did his nose bridge to get him pushing muzzle higher. Then physically standing him up and merrily boucing him out a few steps. He already understands the motivational pops for heeling. About turns I kept leash tight to me and made him stay close , then happy pop, pop out of it. The popping wis done with two hands on the lead to "keep the dog balanced". I don't know why but it does work better this way. No one should misinterpret ths to think I was going wang-ho on my dog or getting after him. It is very motivational to the dog and the right level and attitude must be used.

I noted that Hogan was somewhat resistant to some of the handling. I can't think of a better dog to do this with. He is cheeky! 

I do not know exactly where to put the forced retrieve as far as definition. Sylvia does what I consider a compulsed retrieve. The thing is tossed. She steps out to it. Then dog is commanded and quickly moved to the item. She puts this in the mouth. (i skipped describing the foundation work to this). I consider this compulsion because the dog is made to do it. It is all done so fast, energetically and happily that the dog does not have time to get funky in its mind about the compulsion. An ear pinch or collar retrieve is different from this, to my mind.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

AgileGSD said:


> It seems that building reliability has always been the hard part of training for competition.


Boy ain't THAT the truth! 

You can have really great scores when going for the 3 legs....but maintaining the performance for the long haul, well, that's the real trick! I'm still trying to figure it out, haven't gotten all the way there yet. I think you need the right balance of good dog, good trainer, and a good relationship. Even then it's really easy to screw it up!

Mike is qualifying pretty consistently and he does seem to enjoy his time in the ring. So maybe I'm finally figuring out my part of this deal


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Wow, interesting to me that some people are considering compulsion to be unfair treatment of an animal who doesn't understand what is being asked. That's just bad training--period! There is not "technique" that can be reasonably tied to that kind of thing.

I train with someone who definitely uses and has used for a long time this sort of training (among a bunch of other stuff). 

In Elizabeth's thread about heeling, she asked for opinions on control with her puppy. I suggested opposition using a prong....but she didn't want to use a prong. I'm not sure why because in the sense that I use it for heeling...there isn't an actual CORRECTION with the prong every happening...but there is a physical element to it. It can be done with or without a prong, a prong is just a more effective way of communicating. Basically, you teach the dog that steady pressure on the leash means to stay in a sit. After the dog understands that, you can incorporate it into heeling. If you start to move and there is wildness/jumping/out of controlness going on, simply pull up with steady--BUT LIGHT--pressure...dog gets himself calmed down, into a sit in heel position, and you can start again. Conversly, a "jingle jingle jingle" of the leash/prong means to pump it up.

Just last night at our lessons, an AKC OB dog has recently gotten a little sloppy about her down stays. So they moved her to stays on a platform. SHe is rather soft...so if she moved with distractions the handler simply took the leash, said "oh, girly, you need to go back to a down" and in a no-nonsense, but calm way put her back into it. And she got lots of "yay! Good girls!" when she did.

Seems like the same sort of things that are being discussed here.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Compulsion as is generally known here goes glove in hand with praise. There should normally be 3 parts praise to one part compulsion in training. Most people do it the exact opposite. With compulsion there are two primary outcomes that can occur(maybe more but for this conversation I mean two), 1) the compulsion can be used to"direct" the dog into what you want them to do by stopping the unwanted actions until they get it right, or 2) it can be a small blip that interrupts actions so that rewardbased praise can be used to motivate the dog to try to do what you want. Its hard to explain, but in one compulsion is a primary tool and often determines how the dog approaches training in mindset.....in two compulsion is secondary, praise is primary, and the dog learns it is very easy to please you and tries to do what is taught in an upbeat manner. Most people I see working their dog especially during beginning and intermediate training use "too little " praise and too much compulsion.JMO


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Samba said:


> She did mention that people here seem to go into competition too soon with their dogs.


 ITA with this. I'm always surprised when I hear people talk about entering trials with their dog that isn't even consistent in training. If you're not getting it in training, you're not going to get it in competition. And even if you do manage to fake your way through Novice, it's only going to get harder. And then there is the thinking that "Novice is boring" and their dog who is barely Qing in Novice will suddenly become awesome in Open because it's "fun".




DunRingill said:


> Mike is qualifying pretty consistently and he does seem to enjoy his time in the ring. So maybe I'm finally figuring out my part of this deal


 Go Mike! And you too Regina 



cliffson1 said:


> Most people I see working their dog especially during beginning and intermediate training use "too little " praise and too much compulsion.JMO


 ITA with this too.


----------



## FG167 (Sep 22, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Wow, interesting to me that some people are considering compulsion to be unfair treatment of an animal who doesn't understand what is being asked. That's just bad training--period! There is not "technique" that can be reasonably tied to that kind of thing.
> 
> I train with someone who definitely uses and has used for a long time this sort of training (among a bunch of other stuff).
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with everything you said. It is also how I approach training. It is how Kastle is being trained. My personality does not allow for compulsion-free training, it's not who I am. So, I work with it and make it work for my dogs and I.

Right now, I have a relatively sensitive dog (who fakes being soft) and a really hard puppy. I live with two more hard dogs (with me, Dottie is extremely soft with Jason). One of them gets *pissed* if I don't use compulsion to show her the black and white. She will literally "yell" at me if I am not clear. I use a mix of positive and compulsion-based training with all of the dogs, including the soft one. And I agree about the prong, it is a nice way to draw the line, the same with the clicker. Yes, a flat collar and word-marker will do the job, but sometimes it's faster, easier and clearer for the dog to use a pinch and a clicker. My goal is to make sure my dogs understand what I want, so they can enjoy themselves in the training.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I see quite a bit of the type of training that people are talking about. The dog is shown with luring, clickers, treats etc. the behavior is marker, rewarded etc. 

But, what I am talking about is not that at all. The young pups are started with play and compulsion (but not your typical compulsion). I started two of my dogs this way when I was trying to learn the technique. They didn't know the behaviors and I physically showed them. Lots of hands on the dog...moving and physically placing the dog. Holding and showing the dog. Holding the dogs head up to show the position I want with the muzzle pointed up. Then reaching down and lifting the dog into the stand. The very beginning teaching is the same as what the compulsion and correcting is later in heeling. 

I remember seeing some of this type work in books by the Volhards. I recall decades ago my class with the family dog where we did placing of the dog. Of course, there was not the energy and physical play in those classes. Peoples always leaving that out!!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I've done a little heelwork with Pan where I sort of manipulate his head by putting my left hand around the left side of his jaw and my fingers kind of hook into the underside of his jaw. As I move forward it's almost like I'm "tickling" him there, I'm not really holding his head or grasping him, sort of tapping him in the rhythm we are moving. I haven't done this a lot, certainly not how I taught the bulk of the heelwork, but I've done it enough where he now finds being in heel position comforting. If he wants attention from me he will get into that position on his own and sort of rest his head into my hand. I use a bit firmer touch there when he is getting overloaded and needs to be more calm (like a calming signal or T-Touch kind of stuff). Not sure if this is what you mean but it seems to fit.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Samba said:


> But, what I am talking about is not that at all. The young pups are started with play and compulsion (but not your typical compulsion). I started two of my dogs this way when I was trying to learn the technique. They didn't know the behaviors and I physically showed them. Lots of hands on the dog...moving and physically placing the dog. Holding and showing the dog. Holding the dogs head up to show the position I want with the muzzle pointed up. Then reaching down and lifting the dog into the stand. The very beginning teaching is the same as what the compulsion and correcting is later in heeling.


 This is called "molding". It's one of the main ways you can get behavior when teaching a dog, the other ways would include luring, shaping, capturing.

"The six most common techniques for getting behavior are described below.
*Instinct, allelomimetic behavior, mimicry, social facilitation. *While these are each subtly different, they all fall into the category of naturally occurring, “non-training” methods of learning. With this method you’re taking advantage of the dog’s instincts to get the behaviors you want. For example, many dogs will naturally follow another dog. You could, then, pair that dog with a dog who has a terrific off-leash recall to help build a habit of returning when called.


Pros: These natural methods of learning are ideal for the canine brain. They are an excellent choice when working on simple behaviors with a group of dogs.
Cons: Although there are numerous anecdotes of dogs learning trainer-defined skills using these methods, depending on them to teach behaviors that aren’t natural canine behavior is an iffy proposition. Bottom line: if it works, terrific! But don’t count it as a sure thing.
 *Molding. *Molding is physically guiding or otherwise compelling a dog to do a behavior. Pulling up on the dog’s collar while pushing down on his rear is a method of molding a sit. Molding also includes the use of physical props, such as working against a wall to force a straight heel or putting tape on the dog’s face to elicit a paw over the nose.


Pros: Molding is easily understood by humans, and thus it’s very easy for beginners. It’s a quick, easy way to teach large behaviors.
Cons: Though good for large behaviors, molding is limiting for trainers who want more precise or advanced behaviors, and it requires a great deal of trainer participation, which then has to be faded from the picture. The dog has to do very, very little thinking—his body is set up to perform the desired behavior.
 *Luring. *Luring is a hands-off method of guiding the dog through a behavior. Lures are usually food but may be target sticks or anything else the dog will follow. A common method of luring the sit is to hold food in front of the dog’s nose, and then move the food up and back. As the dog’s head follows the food, generally the back end will drop to the floor.


Pros: Luring is fast and flexible, and it’s easy for beginners.
Cons: Lures must be faded early or they become part of the behavior, and properly fading a lure is not easy for beginners. Luring, like molding, requires little mental effort by the dog. You’re telling him everything he needs to know, and helping the dog becomes habitual—for both of you.
 *Targeting. *Targeting, at its most basic, is the behavior of touching a specified surface with a particular body part. In practice, targeting is much more flexible. Targets can be used to position an animal, to manipulate its body position, or transferred to a different surface—or used in combination to get incredibly complex behaviors.


Pros: Basic targeting is a simple, easy to teach behavior that can be generalized to different body parts fairly easily. Targeting is fast.
Cons: After the initial behavior is taught, this method requires little mental effort by the dog—the trainer gives the dog all the information he needs. Trainer participation is heavy and must be faded.
 *Capturing. *In capturing, the trainer waits for the dog to offer the behavior, then marks and rewards it. Simple!


Pros: Capturing is easy for beginners if the desired behavior occurs frequently. Even better, it requires mental effort from the dog to figure out why it’s being rewarded.
Cons: Unfortunately, capturing is limited to naturally-occurring behaviors—it’s not likely you can capture a competition-perfect drop on recall. The trainer has to be ready to capture the behavior when it’s offered.
 *Shaping. *Shaping is a technique of training a complex behavior by teaching, and gradually building upon, the behavior’s individual responses. To shape a spin, a trainer might start with just a glance to the left. Then a glance and a weight shift. Then a glance, a weight shift, and movement of a front paw, continuing until the dog is performing a complete spin.


Pros: The clicker makes shaping a powerful technique, enabling incredibly precise behaviors. Its flexibility is unmatched. Once the trainer and dog  are skilled with the method, shaping is extremely fast. Best of all, shaping requires significant mental effort, creativity, and problem-solving ability by the dog.
Cons: Shaping requires good observational skills, and until those are developed, shaping can be frustrating to the trainer. It also requires the ability to break behavior into small enough increments that your dog remains consistently successful. If the trainer can’t do this, the dog can get frustrated. Shaping can be frustrating to dogs and trainers who aren’t method-savvy, aren’t comfortable experimenting, or aren’t good problem-solvers. Until the dog and trainer are experienced, especially if they lack a mentor to help them learn the method, progress can be slow."
ClickerSolutions Training Articles -How You Get Behavior Really Does Matter


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, some of Sylvia's work is molding. The dog is placed in positions or physically helped with them. I used to think of this work as described...the dog does not do it themselves so less desirable for learning. In the context of training for competition, I am not sure it is a big drawback. Sylvia does use some luring with food and toy also. I would not say she is a purist in any sense of it. But, the involvement of the handler and the understanding of the required nature of the behaviors early on is interesting. The handler is the exciting part...more than the toy and food really.


----------

